{"id":47,"date":"2024-10-15T16:26:01","date_gmt":"2024-10-15T16:26:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/?post_type=chapter&#038;p=47"},"modified":"2026-03-03T20:06:46","modified_gmt":"2026-03-03T20:06:46","slug":"chapter-2-theories-of-international-relations-zombies","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/chapter\/chapter-2-theories-of-international-relations-zombies\/","title":{"raw":"Chapter 2: Theories of International Relations &amp; Zombies","rendered":"Chapter 2: Theories of International Relations &amp; Zombies"},"content":{"raw":"<div style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\r\n<h2 class=\"indent\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">Introduction<\/h2>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In this chapter, we\u2019ll dive into the major theories that scholars use to make sense of global politics\u2014realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism, and feminism. These theories are more than just academic jargon; they are powerful tools for understanding why states behave the way they do. Whether it\u2019s navigating alliances, responding to crises, or vying for dominance, these frameworks reveal the motives, strategies, and power structures that shape our world. To make things a bit more engaging, we\u2019ll step away from dry textbook examples and instead imagine how the world might react to something a little more\u2026 unconventional: a zombie apocalypse. Yes, zombies! It\u2019s the perfect way to bring these theories to life (or undead life, as the case may be), showing how they operate in an extreme and chaotic scenario.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">But before we start fortifying bunkers and debating zombie containment policies, let\u2019s remember the real goal: understanding how these theories interpret state behavior during moments of crisis. Realism\u2019s gritty focus on survival and power gives us one lens, while liberalism\u2019s optimism about cooperation through institutions provides another. Constructivism pushes us to consider the influence of ideas and norms, Marxism critiques the role of economic inequality, and feminism urges us to think about who is overlooked in traditional analyses. By the end of this chapter, you won\u2019t just know the definitions\u2014you\u2019ll see these theories in action, from the battlefield to the negotiating table, whether in a zombie apocalypse or the real world. So buckle up\u2014together, we\u2019ll tackle the big questions of international relations and maybe even survive the zombies in the process.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h3 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>SPOILER WARNING<\/strong><\/h3>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This chapter will reference specific characters and events from the film <em>World War Z<\/em>, some of which may spoil major plot points. If you would like to watch the film before you continue, I highly recommend it. HCC students can watch the film for free through our library's Swank account here: <a href=\"https:\/\/digitalcampus-swankmp-net.eu1.proxy.openathens.net\/hccfl366926\/watch\/179F203E0AE42652?referrer=direct\"><em>World War Z<\/em> (2013)<\/a>\u00a0Not an HCC student? Check your streaming platforms or local library for access!<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div style=\"font-weight: 400; text-align: justify;\">\r\n\r\n<!--nextpage-->\r\n<h2>Learning Outcomes<\/h2>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li data-leveltext=\"\uf0d8\" data-font=\"Wingdings\" data-listid=\"3\" data-list-defn-props=\"{&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559683&quot;:0,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:360,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Wingdings&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;\uf0d8&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}\" data-aria-posinset=\"1\" data-aria-level=\"1\">By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li data-leveltext=\"o\" data-font=\"Courier New\" data-listid=\"3\" data-list-defn-props=\"{&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559683&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:1080,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Courier New&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[9675],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;o&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}\" data-aria-posinset=\"1\" data-aria-level=\"2\">Explain the fundamental principles of realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism, and feminist theories in international relations.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li data-leveltext=\"o\" data-font=\"Courier New\" data-listid=\"3\" data-list-defn-props=\"{&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559683&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:1080,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Courier New&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[9675],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;o&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}\" data-aria-posinset=\"2\" data-aria-level=\"2\">Compare and contrast how different IR theories interpret state behavior, power structures, and global interactions.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li data-leveltext=\"o\" data-font=\"Courier New\" data-listid=\"3\" data-list-defn-props=\"{&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559683&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:1080,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Courier New&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[9675],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;o&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}\" data-aria-posinset=\"3\" data-aria-level=\"2\">Apply key theoretical frameworks to contemporary international issues and evaluate their effectiveness in explaining global political dynamics.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<!--nextpage-->\r\n<h2>2.1: Case Study- Zombies, Theories, and \u201cWorld War Z\u201d<\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"indent\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">Before we look at different IR theories we have to pause for a moment and answer the truly important question of this chapter: What is a zombie? \ud83e\udddf A zombie is typically depicted as a reanimated corpse or infected human, mindlessly driven by a primal urge\u2014usually to consume human flesh. In pop culture, zombies are often slow-moving but relentless. But zombies are rarely just monsters; they are powerful metaphors. They often embody both our fears of death and our anxieties about losing control. They can even symbolize mass consumerism, where society mindlessly follows trends without question, or reflect fears of societal collapse, representing what could happen if order and structure break down. Sometimes zombies stand for disease and contagion, embodying our dread of outbreaks that turn loved ones into threats. Through these symbols, zombies provide a way to examine our deeper fears, but pop culture can also shape our view of real-world events in problematic ways. By framing crises or conflicts as zombie-like threats, we may oversimplify complex situations or dehumanize others, leading to misunderstandings and reinforcing negative stereotypes about certain groups or global issues. Take a listen to this podcast of the article \"Metaphor of the Living Dead\" by political scientist Daniel Drezner to consider the implications of using zombies in pop culture.<\/p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<strong>PODCAST: \"Metaphor of the Living Dead\" by political scientist Daniel Drezner (Drezner, 2014)<\/strong>\r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"11\"]\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In this chapter, we will use the film <em>World War Z <\/em>to better understand theories of international relations. In <em>World War Z<\/em>, we follow Gerry Lane, a former UN investigator, as he races against time to stop a global zombie pandemic. The outbreak spreads like wildfire, threatening the survival of humanity. We see as Lane travels across the world\u2014from South Korea to Israel and beyond\u2014searching for the origins of the virus and a way to stop it. Along the way, we see governments respond in different ways, with some building defenses and others collapsing under the pressure. Eventually, Lane discovers a method to make humans invisible to zombies, offering hope in the face of chaos and destruction. Watch the opening scene from\u00a0<em>World War Z\u00a0<\/em>to get a better sense of just how a zombie outbreak might start!<\/p>\r\nhttps:\/\/youtu.be\/GOPtUPP-IOQ\r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"10\"]\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Now, imagine using a fictional event like a zombie apocalypse to delve into how different international relations (IR) theories might respond. A crisis of this scale\u2014global, existential, and chaotic\u2014pushes governments, institutions, and societies to their breaking points. It forces you to think about how states would prioritize their actions and interact with one another under extreme stress. Would states isolate themselves and focus solely on their own survival, or would they collaborate to find a solution? This is where IR theories come into play. Each theory\u2014realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism, and feminism\u2014offers a unique lens for interpreting state behavior, global dynamics, and the power structures that shape international responses. But what really is a \"theory\" and how do they function in IR research?<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\" data-start=\"0\" data-end=\"875\">When people hear the word \u201ctheory,\u201d they often think it means a simple guess or speculation. In everyday conversation, someone might say, \u201cI have a theory about who ate the last slice of pizza,\u201d when what they really mean is a hypothesis\u2014a possible explanation that hasn\u2019t been fully tested. This misunderstanding can lead to confusion, especially when discussing scientific theories, which are well-researched explanations supported by evidence. For example, in the real world, the germ theory of disease isn\u2019t just a guess; it\u2019s a thoroughly tested and widely accepted explanation of how illnesses spread through microscopic organisms. In the world of zombies, someone might say, \u201cI have a theory that zombies only attack humans because they miss social interaction,\u201d but without evidence, that\u2019s really just a fun (potentially dangerous) hypothesis rather than a true scientific theory.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\" data-start=\"877\" data-end=\"1848\" data-is-last-node=\"\">In political science, theories serve an essential purpose: they help us make sense of complex patterns in global politics and explain why states behave the way they do. Theories provide a framework for analyzing past events, understanding current affairs, and even predicting future political behavior. For example, democratic peace theory suggests that democracies are less likely to go to war with one another because of shared norms and institutional constraints. This theory isn\u2019t just a random idea\u2014it\u2019s built on extensive research and historical evidence. In a zombie scenario, an international relations theory could help explain how governments might react to an outbreak. A realist theory, for instance, would predict that states prioritize their own survival, building walls and stockpiling resources rather than working together. In both real and fictional crises, political theories give us the tools to understand and analyze complex global interactions.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">By exploring how states might respond to zombies, you can begin to evaluate the key principles and assumptions underlying each theory. For instance, realism might highlight military survival and the inevitable competition between states for scarce resources like vaccines or safe zones. Liberalism, on the other hand, could emphasize the potential for international institutions and alliances to coordinate a collective response. Constructivism would encourage us to examine how states frame the zombie threat\u2014whether as an enemy to be eradicated or a humanitarian crisis requiring solidarity\u2014while Marxism would focus on how global capitalism and class dynamics determine which populations are most vulnerable. Feminism would urge us to look beyond state-level responses to consider how marginalized groups, particularly women, experience the crisis and contribute to its resolution. Fictional events like these are invaluable because they stress-test these theories, offering a hands-on way to compare and contrast how they interpret state behavior, power dynamics, and global interactions during a catastrophe.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_488\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"300\"]<img class=\"wp-image-488 size-full\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/walking_dead_style_final.png\" alt=\"Zombies outside of a destroyed city. \" width=\"300\" height=\"199\" \/> A zombie apocalypse is one way to test an IR theory to better understand it's foundational concepts. Image generated by OpenAI\u2019s DALL\u00b7E.[\/caption]\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">By using the zombie apocalypse as a case study, you now have a unique opportunity to engage with international relations theories in a creative and critical way. Imagining states, institutions, and societies facing an existential threat allows you to explore how these theories function under pressure and assess their strengths and limitations. This exercise not only helps you think critically about global politics but also equips you with a better understanding of how states interact in times of crisis. Whether the crisis is fictional\u2014like a zombie apocalypse\u2014or real, such as climate change or pandemics, these theories provide essential tools for analyzing international relations. And who knows\u2014if zombies ever do show up, at least you\u2019ll be ready to analyze their foreign policy!<\/p>\r\n<!--nextpage-->\r\n<h2>2.2: Theory<\/h2>\r\n<p data-start=\"258\" data-end=\"1135\">At its core, a <strong>[pb_glossary id=\"1195\"]theory[\/pb_glossary] <\/strong>is a structured explanation or model that helps us make sense of complex phenomena by identifying patterns, causes, and relationships. Think of a theory as a mental map\u2014it doesn't recreate the world in perfect detail, but it offers enough guidance to navigate it intelligently. In international relations, theories serve as frameworks that help scholars and policymakers understand why states behave the way they do, how conflicts arise, and what might foster cooperation. A <em data-start=\"789\" data-end=\"801\">hypothesis<\/em>, by contrast, is a specific, testable proposition often derived from a theory. For example, if Realist theory emphasizes power and survival, a hypothesis might propose that \u201cstates with increasing military capabilities are more likely to initiate conflict.\u201d In short, theories are the big-picture lenses; hypotheses are the zoom-ins.<\/p>\r\n<p data-start=\"1137\" data-end=\"1883\">You\u2019ve probably heard someone dismiss an idea by saying it\u2019s \u201cjust a theory.\u201d But in the academic world\u2014especially in political science and international relations\u2014that phrase makes scholars wince. Theories are not wild guesses or untested whims. They\u2019re rigorously developed, debated, and often supported by decades of empirical observation and historical study. Kenneth Waltz\u2019s <em data-start=\"1551\" data-end=\"1585\">Theory of International Politics<\/em> (1979), for instance, reshaped the field by introducing structural realism, which remains a foundational theory even when people disagree with it. Theories can be revised or even replaced, but they\u2019re far from arbitrary\u2014they\u2019re essential tools for making sense of a world that often seems chaotic.<\/p>\r\n<p data-start=\"1885\" data-end=\"2707\">Compared to other branches of political science, international relations leans heavily on theory. Why? Because IR deals with a uniquely anarchic environment\u2014there\u2019s no global government enforcing rules the way national governments do within states. This lack of central authority makes outcomes harder to predict and more reliant on theoretical interpretation. Without theory, we\u2019d just have a long list of facts\u2014wars, treaties, trade deals\u2014with no way to connect the dots. As we move into the next section, we\u2019ll explore six major IR theories that have each shaped the way scholars and policymakers think about global politics. Each offers a different lens\u2014sometimes overlapping, sometimes clashing\u2014but all are valuable in understanding the global stage and the drama that plays out on it.<\/p>\r\n<!--nextpage-->\r\n<h2>2.3: Realism<\/h2>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Imagine a world where every state is primarily concerned with its own survival, constantly wary of others. This is the central focus of realism, one of the most influential theories in international relations. <strong>[pb_glossary id=\"54\"]Realism[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong> emphasizes the competitive and conflictual nature of global politics, operating on the assumption that each state behaves as a <strong>[pb_glossary id=\"97\"]unitary actor[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong>\u2014a cohesive entity that makes decisions based solely on national interest, without internal divisions or competing interests. Like chess players, states are driven by a desire to accumulate power and secure their interests in a dangerous and anarchic world where no central authority exists to enforce rules or mediate disputes. As a result, realists argue, states are often locked in a struggle for dominance or, at the very least, for survival, and their behavior reflects this constant vigilance.<\/p>\r\nOne of the core pillars of realism is the concept of [pb_glossary id=\"207\"]<strong>hard power<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary]\u2014the use of military and economic tools by states to influence the behavior of others. Realists argue that in an anarchic international system, where no central authority exists to enforce rules or ensure peace, power becomes the primary currency. As such, states rely on tangible capabilities\u2014troops, tanks, aircraft carriers, and economic leverage\u2014to secure their interests. Hans Morgenthau, one of the founding figures of classical realism, emphasized that international politics is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature, and at the center of those laws is the pursuit of power. In his seminal work Politics Among Nations (1948), Morgenthau argues that political leaders must think and act in terms of national interest defined as power, especially military power, to survive in a competitive international environment. For realists, then, the ability to project hard power isn\u2019t just a policy choice\u2014it\u2019s a necessity for survival and influence on the world stage.\r\n\r\nTwo notable examples of hard power in action are the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and the international sanctions imposed on Iran. In the case of Iraq, the U.S. justified its military intervention on the grounds that Saddam Hussein's regime posed a threat to global security due to alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). While the existence of such weapons was later disproven, the operation reflected a realist mindset: removing a perceived threat through overwhelming force to protect national interests and reshape the regional balance of power. This use of direct military force exemplifies hard power\u2019s most visible form\u2014war. In contrast, the campaign of economic sanctions against Iran, particularly those aimed at halting its nuclear program, illustrates a more subtle but still coercive application of hard power. By restricting Iran\u2019s access to global markets and freezing financial assets, the United States and its allies sought to pressure the Iranian government into compliance without firing a single shot. Both cases demonstrate how realism views coercion\u2014whether through bombs or bank freezes\u2014as a necessary tool in a world defined by competition and insecurity.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_78\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"300\"]<img class=\"wp-image-78 size-medium\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Realism-300x300.webp\" alt=\"Soliders and military vehicles outside of a city. \" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" \/> Military might, or hard power, is fundamental to realism. Image generated by OpenAI\u2019s DALL\u00b7E.[\/caption]\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This focus on power and security can lead to what is known as the <strong>[pb_glossary id=\"57\"]security dilemma[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong>. The security dilemma occurs when one state's actions to increase its own security\u2014such as building up its military\u2014make other states feel less secure. This often triggers a cycle of suspicion and arms races. One state\u2019s pursuit of defense is seen by others as a potential threat, so they build up their own forces in response. The Cold War provides a textbook example of this dilemma: the United States and the Soviet Union both expanded their nuclear arsenals out of fear that the other side might gain an advantage. What started as defensive actions by each side eventually spiraled into a full-blown arms race. The security dilemma illustrates how, in the realist world, even efforts to stay safe can make everyone feel less secure.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This brings us to the idea of <strong>[pb_glossary id=\"58\"]zero-sum[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong> dynamics, another key feature of realism. In a zero-sum game, one side\u2019s gain is always another side\u2019s loss\u2014there\u2019s no room for mutual benefit. Realists argue that international politics often operates in this manner. If one state increases its power, another state inevitably loses relative power. This logic is evident in territorial disputes, where control over land or resources is finite, and one state's gain comes directly at another's expense. For example, the ongoing South China Sea dispute pits several nations against each other over control of valuable maritime territory. Any gains in sovereignty or resources by one state result in losses for the others. In such zero-sum situations, compromise or cooperation is difficult because states are inherently focused on maximizing their own gains.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">To manage the persistent risk of conflict in international relations, realism emphasizes the importance of maintaining a [pb_glossary id=\"59\"]balance of power[\/pb_glossary]. This foundational concept refers to a distribution of capabilities among states in which no single actor becomes powerful enough to dominate all others. In the realist worldview, states are inherently self-interested and exist in a condition of anarchy\u2014without a global authority to enforce rules or guarantee peace. As such, states must constantly assess and respond to the relative power of others. The structure of the international system can take different forms: a unipolar system, where one state holds overwhelming dominance (as the U.S. did after the Cold War); a bipolar system, where two major powers balance each other (as during the U.S.\u2013Soviet rivalry of the Cold War); or a multipolar system, where power is distributed among several states (as in Europe before World War I). Realists argue that regardless of the configuration, states will engage in balancing behaviors\u2014forming alliances, building military capabilities, or pursuing deterrence\u2014to prevent any one actor from becoming too powerful. The goal isn\u2019t necessarily peace, but rather stability through fear and equilibrium, where the risks of aggression are high enough to discourage it.<\/p>\r\nHistory offers compelling examples of the balance of power in action, particularly in 19th-century Europe. After the upheaval of the Napoleonic Wars, European states recognized the need to prevent any single power\u2014like Napoleonic France\u2014from overwhelming the continent again. The resulting diplomatic strategy involved a web of shifting alliances among major powers such as Britain, France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia. This approach culminated in the Congress of Vienna in 1815, which aimed to restore equilibrium by reestablishing traditional monarchies and territorial boundaries. Britain, for instance, frequently acted as an offshore balancer, supporting coalitions that opposed whichever continental power seemed most threatening at the time. These maneuvers weren't driven by ideology or shared values, but by cold calculations of interest and threat\u2014classic realist behavior. The long peace that followed, known as the Concert of Europe, illustrates how a carefully managed balance of power can reduce the likelihood of major war, even among rival states. But that's all ancient history. How would realism respond if, say, a zombie apocolypse were to break out?!\r\n<h3>Realism: Power, Survival, and Keeping Zombies Off Your Lawn<\/h3>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">When the dead start rising, don\u2019t expect countries to hold hands and sing \u201cKumbaya.\u201d At least, that's what a realist would say! If we view the zombie apocalypse through the lens of realism, the international response would be characterized by a fierce competition for survival. Realists believe the international system is anarchic\u2014there\u2019s no overarching authority to control the actions of states. In a zombie crisis, states would focus on their own survival, securing borders, and amassing military power (including hard power like weapons and secure strongholds) to protect their populations from both zombies and other states. For example, in <em>World War Z<\/em>, Israel\u2019s decision to build a massive wall around its borders early on is a classic realist move: prioritize national security at all costs, even if it means isolating oneself from global cooperation.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Realists would expect a security dilemma to unfold during a zombie apocalypse, as states prioritize their own survival and view others with suspicion. If one country begins stockpiling military equipment and fortifying its borders to fight zombies, neighboring states might perceive this as a potential threat rather than just a defensive measure. In response, they too would amass weapons and resources\u2014not only to combat the undead but also to prepare for possible opportunistic attacks from rival states. This creates a zero-sum situation, where one state's increase in security makes others feel less safe, leading to an escalating arms race. As resources like food, medicine, and safe zones become scarce, fear and mistrust could push states toward preemptive invasions, seizing supplies before others have the chance. Instead of uniting against the zombie threat, nations might spiral into conflicts driven by self-preservation, proving that even in the face of an apocalyptic crisis, realists believe states would see each other as their greatest competitors\u2014perhaps even more dangerous than the walking dead themselves.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Realism, with its focus on power, competition, and conflict, offers a straightforward explanation for much of state behavior in international politics. However, it is not without its critics. Some argue that this theory overemphasizes conflict and neglects cooperation, which will be explored in greater depth when we discuss alternative theories like liberalism in the next section. While realism provides a powerful lens for understanding the competitive nature of international relations, it may not fully account for the instances where states do manage to work together for mutual benefit. Nonetheless, understanding realism is crucial for grasping why global politics so often seems like a high-stakes game where survival, not cooperation, is the ultimate prize.<\/p>\r\n<!--nextpage-->\r\n<h2>2.4: Liberalism<\/h2>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If realism sees the world as a bar fight waiting to happen, liberalism is the friend trying to mediate before anyone throws a punch. While realism views the international system as a battlefield of competing powers, liberalism offers a more optimistic perspective. In contrast to the conflict-focused view of realism, [pb_glossary id=\"60\"]<strong>liberalism<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] emphasizes the potential for cooperation and mutual benefit among states. According to liberal theory, international relations don\u2019t always have to be a zero-sum game. States can work together through diplomacy, trade, and shared institutions to achieve common goals, reduce conflict, and foster peace. By focusing on the ways states can cooperate, liberalism highlights a more collaborative, interconnected world where power is not just about military might but also about influence, attraction, and collective action.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">One of the key ways liberalism sets itself apart from realism is in its emphasis on [pb_glossary id=\"61\"]<strong>soft power<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary]\u2014the ability of a state to influence others not through coercion or force, but through attraction, persuasion, and legitimacy. Coined by political scientist Joseph Nye, soft power reflects a state's capacity to shape the preferences and behavior of others by making its values, culture, and institutions appealing. In contrast to realism\u2019s focus on survival and power maximization, liberalism believes that cooperation, mutual benefits, and shared norms can shape global politics. Tools of soft power include diplomacy, cultural exchange, education programs, and the global promotion of ideas like democracy and human rights. For example, the international popularity of American movies, music, universities, and technology brands isn't just cultural fluff\u2014it\u2019s a form of influence that helps legitimize U.S. leadership and foster goodwill. From a liberal perspective, this kind of influence makes conflict less likely, as states are more inclined to cooperate with countries they admire and share values with.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A powerful illustration of soft power at work can be found during the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet Union competed not only through arms races and proxy wars, but also through a battle of ideologies and lifestyles. The U.S. promoted consumerism, political freedom, and pop culture as part of a broader campaign to portray liberal democracy as the more desirable model. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union advanced a counter-narrative centered on socialism, equality, and collective identity. This rivalry played out in radio broadcasts, Olympic games, educational exchanges, and even in space exploration\u2014each side trying to convince the world that its way of life was superior. Liberal theory sees this as a clear demonstration that ideas and institutions matter, and that the ability to win hearts and minds is as strategically important as military force. Soft power is central to the liberal belief that international influence can be built through cooperation, respect, and shared identity\u2014not just dominance.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Liberalism also underscores the importance of [pb_glossary id=\"62\"]<strong>institutions<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] in fostering cooperation between states. Institutions are the rules, norms, and organizations that structure state behavior in the international system. These can include formal entities like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, or the International Monetary Fund, as well as informal norms that guide state interactions. Institutions provide a framework for resolving disputes, creating trust, and promoting cooperation. For example, the European Union has created a complex set of rules and institutions that not only facilitate economic cooperation but also prevent conflicts between member states. By providing regular forums for dialogue, monitoring compliance, and offering mechanisms for conflict resolution, institutions reduce the unpredictability and mistrust that often lead to war.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_80\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"300\"]<img class=\"size-medium wp-image-80\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/United-Nations-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Diplomats seated at the General Assembly hall of the United Nations. \" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" \/> Global cooperation, such as diplomats working together an institution like the United Nations, is a key goal of liberalism. Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/media.licdn.com\/dms\/image\/v2\/C4D12AQEa3C1X3I2SFA\/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280\/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280\/0\/1631343464691?e=1744243200&amp;v=beta&amp;t=4-gv2G1wMZ31QO_Ens71gymP--Yd2jyIjLtZ7CznAw8\">Trump White House Archive<\/a>. public domain.[\/caption]\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Liberalism envisions the international system as capable of producing <strong>[pb_glossary id=\"63\"]positive-sum[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong> outcomes, where cooperation benefits all parties involved. In a positive-sum scenario, states aren\u2019t competing for limited resources where one side's gain equals another's loss. Instead, they can all benefit through collaboration. Trade agreements, for example, often create positive-sum dynamics where all participating countries can enjoy economic growth, improved standards of living, and access to goods. The success of global trade organizations, like the World Trade Organization (WTO), is rooted in the idea that trade can generate benefits for all involved, as long as there are fair rules in place. This stands in contrast to the zero-sum thinking of realism and demonstrates how, from a liberal perspective, international politics can be about win-win outcomes.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The concept of <strong>[pb_glossary id=\"64\"]interdependence[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong> lies at the heart of liberal international relations theory. It refers to the mutual reliance between states, especially through economic connections like trade, finance, and supply chains. Liberals argue that as states become more economically interwoven, the incentives for violent conflict diminish\u2014because war would not just harm enemies, but hurt one's own economy in the process. This idea became especially prominent in the work of Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, who introduced the concept of \u201ccomplex interdependence\u201d in the 1970s. They challenged the realist assumption that power politics and military force always dominate international outcomes. Instead, they argued that in a highly connected world, economic, environmental, and technological issues create overlapping interests that make cooperation both necessary and beneficial. In this framework, diplomacy, international institutions, and global markets play a larger role in fostering peace than tanks or missiles.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A powerful example of interdependence in action is the economic relationship between the United States and China. Despite rising tensions over trade policies, cybersecurity, and regional influence, the two countries remain deeply connected through massive bilateral trade, foreign direct investment, and supply chain integration. American companies depend on Chinese manufacturing, while Chinese growth relies heavily on exports and access to U.S. markets. While political leaders on both sides have voiced concerns\u2014and even engaged in trade disputes\u2014these economic ties act as a form of restraint, making outright conflict less likely. Liberal theorists argue that this web of mutual economic interest raises the cost of war to a level that discourages aggressive action. In essence, why bomb your trading partner when both of your stock markets would tank? Interdependence doesn't eliminate conflict entirely, but it shifts state behavior toward negotiation, compromise, and economic diplomacy over brute force.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another important liberal concept is <strong>[pb_glossary id=\"65\"]collective security[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong>, which suggests that peace can be maintained when states agree to protect one another against aggression. In a collective security system, an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, prompting a united response. The most famous example of this is NATO, where members have pledged to defend each other in case of external aggression. This idea stands in contrast to the balance of power thinking in realism, where states constantly seek to counterbalance potential threats. In a collective security arrangement, the goal is not to prepare for inevitable conflict but to prevent it altogether by deterring aggressors through the promise of a coordinated response.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A key contribution of liberalism to international relations is the [pb_glossary id=\"66\"]<strong>Democratic Peace Theory<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary], which posits that democracies are significantly less likely to go to war with one another. This theory is grounded in the belief that democratic states share certain structural and cultural characteristics that reduce the risk of conflict. These include transparency in decision-making, public accountability, free press, and checks and balances that make it more difficult for leaders to engage in aggressive or unilateral military actions. In democracies, leaders must answer to voters and legislatures, and there is often robust debate over the costs and justifications of war. The roots of this idea go back to Immanuel Kant\u2019s 1795 essay Perpetual Peace, in which he argued that a federation of republican states could lead to lasting peace. Modern liberal scholars like Bruce Russett (1993) and Michael Doyle (1983) have provided empirical support for the theory, highlighting how democratic norms and institutions constrain violent behavior between democratic nations.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Empirical studies of international conflict support the Democratic Peace Theory, showing that while democracies do go to war, they rarely go to war with each other. A widely cited example is the long-standing peace between the United States and Canada, two mature democracies with deep economic ties, shared cultural values, and strong political institutions. Despite occasional disagreements\u2014over trade, Arctic sovereignty, or defense spending\u2014the relationship has remained peaceful for well over a century, largely managed through diplomacy rather than force. This stands in contrast to relations between democracies and non-democracies, where conflict remains more likely. From a liberal perspective, this pattern offers hope: if democracy can spread globally, so too can the zones of peace. The Democratic Peace Theory thus reinforces liberalism\u2019s optimistic vision\u2014that through shared governance, norms, and cooperation, the international system can become more stable, less violent, and more just over time. But would this peaceful behavior continue in the face of hordes of the undead at your doorstep?<\/p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h3>Liberalism: Fighting Zombies with Friendship and Committees<\/h3>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If realism prepares for a zombie apocalypse by building walls and stockpiling weapons, liberalism is busy organizing a global task force and drafting a \"Zombies Without Borders\" treaty. Liberalism would focus on cooperation and collective action to combat the zombie threat. Liberals believe that, despite the anarchic nature of international politics, states can work together through institutions and diplomacy to overcome shared challenges. The outbreak of zombies would prompt immediate international collaboration, with states working through institutions like the United Nations or the World Health Organization to coordinate responses, share information, and allocate resources. In World War Z, we see hints of this liberal approach when scientists and governments collaborate to find a cure, emphasizing that cooperation is not only possible but essential for global survival. Check out the following scene from <em>World War Z\u00a0<\/em>to see how the UN might use its global cooperative power to respond to a zombie outbreak.<\/p>\r\nhttps:\/\/youtu.be\/gZrVufisbsU\r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"12\"]\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The liberal emphasis on interdependence would be crucial in a zombie apocalypse, reinforcing the idea that no state can survive alone\u2014especially when facing a relentless, borderless threat. Since zombies don\u2019t respect national boundaries, the survival of any one state is directly tied to the survival of others. Even the most fortified nations would quickly realize they depend on global trade for essential supplies like food, medicine, and fuel. Additionally, medical research must be shared to develop a vaccine or cure as quickly as possible, ensuring that scientific breakthroughs benefit all of humanity rather than being hoarded for strategic advantage. Liberalism would also highlight the importance of positive-sum outcomes, where cooperation leads to mutual benefit rather than cutthroat competition. Instead of stockpiling resources and viewing others as threats, states could pool their expertise, infrastructure, and technological advancements to combat the zombie crisis more effectively. One country might develop a treatment, another might have the manufacturing capacity to mass-produce it, and another could provide the logistics to distribute it globally. Rather than descending into chaos and conflict, liberalism suggests that states would recognize their shared interests and work together, proving that even in an apocalyptic crisis, diplomacy, institutions, and cooperation remain essential tools for survival.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Liberalism, with its focus on cooperation, interdependence, and institutions, offers a compelling alternative to the more conflict-driven worldview of realism. However, just like realism, it has its limitations and critics, especially when cooperation fails, or when institutions are unable to prevent conflict. In the next section, we\u2019ll explore constructivism, a theory that highlights the role of ideas, identities, and norms in shaping international relations, providing yet another lens through which to understand global politics.<\/p>\r\n<!--nextpage-->\r\n<h2>2.5: Constructivism<\/h2>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If zombies have taught us anything, it\u2019s that what truly makes a monster isn\u2019t just rotting flesh\u2014it\u2019s how society perceives it. Imagine if the world we see in international politics wasn't shaped just by military power, economic interests, or treaties, but by shared ideas, values, and beliefs. This is the essence of <strong>[pb_glossary id=\"67\"]constructivism[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong>, an influential theory in international relations. Constructivism focuses on how the identities, ideas, and social norms that states hold influence their behavior. Unlike realism and liberalism, which emphasize material forces like military strength or economic ties, constructivism argues that the international system is socially constructed\u2014shaped by human beliefs and shared understandings. The theory challenges the notion that state behavior is driven purely by objective, fixed factors, suggesting instead that the way states interact and perceive each other can evolve based on changing ideas and norms.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">At the heart of constructivism is the idea of [pb_glossary id=\"68\"]<strong>social construction<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary]\u2014the belief that many of the things we treat as \u201creal\u201d in international relations are not fixed, objective facts, but instead products of shared ideas, beliefs, and norms. In this view, the international system isn't just something we observe\u2014it's something we actively build and maintain through our interactions and assumptions. Take the example of democracy. You can\u2019t hold democracy in your hands or hear it humming in the background, but does that mean it isn\u2019t real? Of course not. Living in a democracy profoundly shapes a person\u2019s life\u2014from having the right to vote to enjoying civil liberties and rule of law. Its \u201creality\u201d is socially constructed through common understanding and institutional practice. In the same way, constructivists argue that key elements of international relations\u2014such as sovereignty, legitimacy, or even who counts as a \"state\"\u2014are only real because we agree they are. They exist not in nature, but in shared meaning.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">To see how constructivism plays out in global politics, consider the example of nuclear weapons. A realist might argue that nukes are simply powerful tools of deterrence\u2014whoever has them can prevent attack by threatening devastating retaliation. But constructivists dig deeper: they ask how and why states interpret nuclear weapons the way they do. Are they ultimate deterrents, national status symbols, or existential threats? The answer depends on a state\u2019s identity, its values, and the global norms it internalizes. For instance, the strong international taboo against the use of nuclear weapons isn\u2019t a natural law\u2014it\u2019s a socially constructed norm that has developed over time through diplomatic agreements, political discourse, and public opinion. The fact that nuclear-armed states refrain from using these weapons, even in extreme circumstances, shows how much shared ideas shape behavior. Constructivism helps us understand that power in international relations isn\u2019t just about tanks and treaties\u2014it\u2019s also about ideas, expectations, and meaning.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A powerful example of the influence of <strong>[pb_glossary id=\"69\"]institutional norms[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong> can be seen in the widespread international taboo against the use of nuclear weapons. Although several states possess these weapons, there is a shared expectation that they should not be used in warfare, largely due to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences. This norm has been reinforced through treaties like the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the broader diplomatic culture that frames nuclear weapons as dangerous and destabilizing. Institutional norms create a kind of \"invisible hand\" in international relations, guiding state behavior not through force but through shared expectations of what is acceptable. In this way, institutional norms can constrain even powerful states, demonstrating how ideas and values can be just as important as material capabilities.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_81\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"300\"]<img class=\"size-medium wp-image-81\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Liberalism-Theory-Picture-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"Diplomats seated around a table. Flags as puzzle pieces implies creating shared norms. \" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" \/> Constructivism argues that through dialogue, states can begin to create a shared reality. Image generated by OpenAI\u2019s DALL\u00b7E.[\/caption]\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Constructivism introduces a powerful but often overlooked form of influence in international relations: [pb_glossary id=\"70\"]<strong>ideational power<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary]. Unlike hard power (military might) or even soft power (cultural attraction), ideational power is the ability to shape global outcomes by influencing beliefs, values, norms, and perceptions. It\u2019s about controlling the narrative\u2014defining what is considered legitimate, moral, or appropriate behavior on the international stage. Scholars such as Martha Finnemore and Katzenstein have been influential in developing this aspect of constructivist theory. In her book National Interests in International Society (1996), Finnemore argues that states\u2019 interests and actions are deeply shaped by international norms\u2014shared ideas about what \u201cgood\u201d states do. Similarly, Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall (2005) have analyzed power as part of their broader typology of power in international relations, highlighting how the ability to shape knowledge and identity can influence actors just as much as direct control can. From a constructivist perspective, ideas are not just reflections of power\u2014they are power.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">You can see ideational power at work in the global influence of international human rights organizations. These groups often lack military forces or massive budgets, yet they shape global politics by influencing how states and societies define justice, fairness, and legitimacy. When Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch reports abuses, it can spark diplomatic pressure, reputational costs, or even legal action\u2014not because these NGOs have guns, but because their moral authority and credibility shape how the world sees an issue. Another compelling case is the global movement to combat climate change. There is no world government with the power to force states to cut emissions, yet norms about environmental responsibility and the moral urgency of climate action have become increasingly powerful. States feel pressure to act not just out of self-interest, but because failing to act is seen as morally and politically unacceptable. Constructivism helps us understand these dynamics by reminding us that international relations are not only driven by material forces, but also by ideas that define what is possible, permissible, and desirable.<\/p>\r\nWhen it comes to understanding the structure of the international system itself, constructivists provide a unique interpretation of anarchy. While realists view anarchy as a permanent and unchangeable feature of the international system\u2014meaning there is no overarching authority to regulate state behavior\u2014constructivists see it differently. For constructivists, <strong>[pb_glossary id=\"87\"]anarchy[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong> is not a fixed, objective condition but rather a social construct that is shaped by how states interact and the identities they hold. In other words, anarchy is what states make of it. If states view one another as threats, anarchy will lead to competition and conflict, as realism predicts. However, if states view one another as potential partners, anarchy can be transformed into a more cooperative, peaceful system. For example, the European Union (EU) has managed to create a highly integrated political and economic space where traditional notions of anarchy have been significantly reduced, as member states have built a collective identity rooted in cooperation rather than conflict.\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Constructivism argues that state identities\u2014how states see themselves and others\u2014are key to understanding their behavior. These identities are not static; they evolve based on interactions with other states and the internal values of societies. For instance, after the end of apartheid, South Africa transformed its international identity from that of a pariah state to a leading advocate for human rights and peacekeeping in Africa. This shift in identity wasn\u2019t driven by material power but by changes in the country's internal political and social values, and its interactions with the global community. Constructivists believe that, by understanding how identities are constructed and maintained, we can better predict how states will behave on the global stage. If the undead rose tomorrow, would constructivists ask how to stop them\u2014or stop to question what it even means to be \u201cundead\u201d in the first place?<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h3>Constructivism: Changing the World, One Zombie-Friendly Idea at a Time<\/h3>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">When it comes to zombies, it\u2019s not just about what they are\u2014it\u2019s about how we <em data-start=\"78\" data-end=\"85\">think<\/em> about them. Constructivism takes a different approach than realism and liberalism, focusing on how shared ideas, identities, and norms shape international responses. From a constructivist perspective, the international community\u2019s reaction to the zombies would depend heavily on how states construct the threat in their minds. Are the zombies seen as mindless enemies, or as a global health crisis that requires humanitarian responses? How states interpret the zombie threat\u2014through the lens of fear, cooperation, or moral obligation\u2014will shape their actions. In World War Z, we see how different governments react based on their identities and norms: Israel\u2019s defensive realism contrasts sharply with North Korea\u2019s more fatalistic approach, shaped by its social norms.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Constructivism would also focus on the role of ideational power. If a state or group of states manages to shape the narrative around the zombie apocalypse\u2014perhaps framing it as a challenge that requires global solidarity and innovation\u2014it could influence how others respond. The perception of zombies, as either an existential enemy or a solvable crisis, could drastically change the course of international action. Additionally, constructivists would argue that anarchy itself is not fixed; it can be reshaped by states\u2019 behaviors. If states collectively choose cooperation over competition, the anarchy of the international system can be transformed, even in a zombie apocalypse.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Constructivism, by focusing on the power of ideas, norms, and identities, offers a radically different way of understanding international relations compared to the more materialist theories of realism and liberalism. Where realism sees a world dominated by competition for power, and liberalism focuses on cooperation through institutions and trade, constructivism shows us that much of international politics is shaped by how states think about and interpret the world around them. While it may seem less concrete than other theories, constructivism reminds us that ideas matter\u2014that the ways we imagine the world can shape the realities of international politics. Next, we will explore Marxism, which takes a different approach by focusing on economic structures and the role of class struggle in shaping global power dynamics.<\/p>\r\n<!--nextpage-->\r\n<h2>2.6: Critical Theories &amp; Marxism<\/h2>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">While traditional theories like realism and liberalism focus on power, states, and institutions, <strong>[pb_glossary id=\"71\"]critical theories[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong> in international relations push us to ask deeper questions: Who holds the power? Who is being exploited? Whose voices are being silenced? Critical theories challenge the mainstream perspectives of IR by emphasizing issues of inequality, oppression, and emancipation. They argue that global politics is not just about state security or economic cooperation, but also about addressing power structures that perpetuate social and economic injustices. These approaches offer fresh perspectives on how international relations are conducted and open the door to questioning the fairness of the global system.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">One of the most well-known critical theories in international relations is <strong>[pb_glossary id=\"72\"]Marxism[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong>, which interprets global politics primarily through the lens of economic class struggle. Rather than viewing states as the central actors in world affairs, Marxism focuses on how economic classes\u2014especially capitalists and workers\u2014shape the international system. According to this perspective, the global political system is dominated by capitalist powers that exploit both the working class within their borders and the less-developed nations of the Global South. Wealthy countries maintain their dominance by extracting labor and resources from poorer regions and funneling profits back to the capitalist core. This process generates global inequality, where a small elite accumulates wealth at the expense of the many. For example, multinational corporations often extract valuable resources\u2014such as minerals, oil, or cash crops\u2014from developing countries at minimal cost, while leaving behind low wages, environmental harm, and few opportunities for economic advancement. Marxism thus offers a structural critique of global capitalism, arguing that exploitation is not a side effect but a core feature of the system.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_82\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"300\"]<img class=\"size-medium wp-image-82\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Marxism-Theory-Picture-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"Skyscapers in the disance. Factories and small houses in the foreground. \" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" \/> One of the most fundamental beliefs of Marxism is that world is divided into the \"haves\" (capitalists) and \"have-nots\" (proletariat). Image generated by OpenAI\u2019s DALL\u00b7E.[\/caption]\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Building on Marxist foundations, [pb_glossary id=\"73\"]<strong>Dependency Theory<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary] applies these ideas directly to the structure of the global economy. Emerging primarily in the 1960s and 70s from scholars in Latin America and beyond, dependency theorists argue that the relationship between the Global North and the Global South is one of systematic exploitation and dependency. Rather than all states participating equally in a global market, the world economy is divided into a core (wealthy, industrialized countries) and a periphery (poorer, resource-exporting countries). Poorer nations are often locked into roles as suppliers of raw materials and low-cost labor, while wealthier nations dominate manufacturing, finance, and technology. Because the profits from global trade flow disproportionately to the core, the periphery remains underdeveloped and dependent, unable to build the industries or infrastructure needed to escape this cycle. According to dependency theorists, this is not just a historical legacy of colonialism\u2014it\u2019s an ongoing process embedded in the rules of international trade and finance.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Two of the most influential voices in this school of thought are Andre Gunder Frank and Immanuel Wallerstein, who helped formalize and globalize the theory of dependency. Frank argued that underdevelopment in the Global South was not the result of internal failures or lack of effort, but the direct outcome of historical and structural connections to the global capitalist system. In his view, development in the core actively produced underdevelopment in the periphery\u2014a condition he called the \"development of underdevelopment.\" Wallerstein expanded these ideas into a broader World-Systems Theory, which categorized countries into a core, periphery, and semi-periphery, emphasizing how the global capitalist system operates as a single, integrated unit. In this system, core countries maintain dominance not just economically, but politically and culturally, reinforcing their status through control over institutions like the IMF and World Bank. These frameworks show how, from a Marxist and dependency perspective, international relations are not a level playing field, but a deeply unequal structure that favors the few at the expense of the many. In a world already divided by wealth and power, would a zombie apocalypse level the playing field\u2014or just deepen the class divide, one barricade at a time?<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h3>Marxism: The Rich Get Bunkers, the Poor Get Zombies<\/h3>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\" data-start=\"0\" data-end=\"998\">If a zombie apocalypse ever breaks out, don\u2019t expect the rich to be running for their lives\u2014they\u2019ll be running for their private bunkers while the rest of us fight off the undead with canned beans and a baseball bat. Marxism views international relations primarily through the lens of economic class struggle, and in a zombie apocalypse, this theory would highlight how the capitalist system exacerbates inequality and exploitation. Marxists would argue that the wealthy elite would leverage their resources to shield themselves from the crisis, while the working class\u2014especially in poorer countries\u2014would suffer disproportionately. The rich might retreat to fortified bunkers, hire private security forces, or escape to exclusive, well-protected safe zones, leaving the working class to fend for themselves in overcrowded cities with little access to food, medicine, or weapons. In a capitalist system, survival itself could become a commodity, where only those with money have the means to escape the worst of the crisis. Governments and corporations would likely prioritize protecting economic elites, while the most vulnerable populations would be left to deal with the outbreak largely on their own.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\" data-start=\"0\" data-end=\"998\">A real-world parallel can be seen in how disasters like pandemics or economic crises disproportionately impact the poor. During the COVID-19 pandemic, wealthier individuals had the ability to work remotely, access private healthcare, and stockpile essential supplies, while lower-income workers\u2014often in frontline jobs\u2014were more exposed to the virus and had fewer resources to cope with economic hardships. Similarly, in <em data-start=\"1421\" data-end=\"1434\">World War Z<\/em>, wealthy and well-connected individuals escape to protected zones while lower-income populations, particularly in developing nations, are left exposed to the full force of the outbreak. Even in fictional zombie scenarios, the wealthy often use their resources to secure survival, while the working class is either abandoned or exploited\u2014forced into dangerous labor or even used as bait to slow down zombie hordes. From a Marxist perspective, a zombie apocalypse wouldn\u2019t just be about the undead\u2014it would be about how capitalism ensures that the rich get bunkers, and the poor get bitten.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\" data-start=\"0\" data-end=\"998\">Building on dependency theory, Marxists would also argue that poorer nations would be further exploited during the apocalypse. Wealthy nations might hoard vaccines or life-saving technologies, using their economic power to extract concessions from desperate states in the Global South. In World War Z, we see glimpses of this when nations with resources become safe havens while others fall into chaos. Marxism would focus on how the global capitalist system perpetuates inequality even in the face of existential threats, as the rich and powerful continue to dominate the international order, even when zombies are at the gates.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><!--nextpage--><\/p>\r\n\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\">2.7: Feminism<\/h2>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>[pb_glossary id=\"74\"]Feminism[\/pb_glossary] <\/strong>in international relations\u00a0shifts the focus from economic class to gender, arguing that traditional international relations theories overlook the roles and experiences of women. Feminist theorists critique the ways in which global politics has been shaped by patriarchal structures, historically dominated by men. This perspective challenges the assumption that international politics is gender-neutral, pointing out how gender dynamics influence power relations, security, and conflict. For example, wars and peace processes are typically framed around male-dominated institutions like the military, often ignoring how women experience conflict differently\u2014whether through gender-based violence, forced displacement, or their roles in peacebuilding. Feminist IR theory insists that understanding international relations fully requires us to see how gender operates at every level of global politics.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_83\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"300\"]<img class=\"size-medium wp-image-83\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Future-is-Feminist-300x188.jpg\" alt=\"Woman holding a sign that says &quot;The Future is Feminist&quot;\" width=\"300\" height=\"188\" \/> From an IR perspective, feminism argues that gender plays a role in shaping global outcomes.\u00a0 <a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:%22The_Future_is_Feminist%22_(31691386593).jpg#\/media\/File:%22The_Future_is_Feminist%22_(31691386593).jpg\">Future is Feminist<\/a> <a class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/people\/109088203@N04\" rel=\"nofollow\">James McNellis<\/a> <a class=\"mw-mmv-license\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/2.0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY 2.0<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A key concept in feminist IR is <strong>[pb_glossary id=\"75\"]patriarchy[\/pb_glossary]<\/strong>, which refers to the historical dominance of men in shaping political, economic, and social institutions. Feminist scholars argue that the global political system is heavily influenced by male-dominated institutions like governments, militaries, and corporations. This male-centric framework influences how states behave and how power is distributed. For example, the fact that national security is often defined in terms of military power, rather than human well-being or social welfare, reflects patriarchal assumptions that prioritize traditionally \"male\" concerns\u2014like state sovereignty and territorial control\u2014over issues that might be seen as \"feminine,\" like education, healthcare, or environmental sustainability. Feminist theory challenges these assumptions and calls for a rethinking of what we consider important in international relations.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This leads to the concept of [pb_glossary id=\"76\"]<strong>gendered security<\/strong>[\/pb_glossary], a central idea in feminist international relations theory that critiques the traditional, state-centric definition of security. Conventional IR approaches often define security in terms of military threats and the protection of national borders. In this framework, the primary concern is preventing war or external aggression against the state. Feminist scholars challenge this narrow definition, arguing that it ignores the everyday, lived experiences of individuals\u2014especially women and marginalized communities\u2014who may face constant insecurity even in so-called \u201cpeaceful\u201d societies. Security, they contend, should not be limited to the absence of war, but should also include protection from structural violence like poverty, inequality, and discrimination. Scholars such as Cynthia Enloe have been instrumental in asking, \u201cWhere are the women?\u201d in global politics\u2014pointing out how traditional IR often renders them invisible.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Feminist theorists argue that global issues such as poverty, environmental degradation, and armed conflict disproportionately affect women and are often overlooked in mainstream security discussions. In many conflict zones, for example, women face heightened risks of sexual and gender-based violence, forced displacement, and loss of access to healthcare or education. Despite playing essential roles in sustaining communities and rebuilding societies after conflict, women are often excluded from peace negotiations and decision-making processes. Gendered security responds to these realities by expanding the concept of security to focus on the well-being and safety of individuals, not just the survival of states. Feminist scholar Laura Sjoberg, in works like Gender, War, and Conflict (2014), emphasizes how ignoring gender in conflict studies leads to incomplete and biased understandings of both violence and peace. Her work illustrates how the intersection of gender and war reshapes who is seen as vulnerable, who is protected, and whose security \"counts.\" Feminist IR theory, in this way, reframes what it means to be \u201csecure\u201d in the international system\u2014not as a condition enjoyed only by powerful states, but as a universal right that must be accessible to all people, regardless of gender.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Both Marxist and feminist theories fall under the broader umbrella of critical theory, which challenges us to question the status quo and consider how power is distributed globally. These approaches emphasize that international relations are not neutral or objective; they are shaped by power imbalances that perpetuate inequality, whether through economic exploitation or gendered oppression. While traditional theories like realism and liberalism might focus on states and institutions, critical theories push us to look at the underlying structures that keep certain groups\u2014whether they are economic classes, women, or entire nations\u2014in positions of disadvantage. This call for emancipation and social justice lies at the heart of critical approaches to international relations, offering a powerful critique of how global politics operates. And if global politics already leaves some groups fighting for scraps, what happens when the scraps are brains\u2014and the patriarchy still gets first dibs?<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">Feminism: Who Runs the World? Girls\u2026 and Also Zombies<\/h3>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\" data-start=\"0\" data-end=\"1105\">When the zombie apocalypse hits, don\u2019t be surprised if the survival plans are drafted by generals and politicians who forget that someone still needs to change diapers, find food, and keep communities functioning. Feminist IR theory would offer a critical view of how gender dynamics shape the response to a zombie apocalypse, arguing that global strategies for dealing with the crisis would be heavily influenced by patriarchal structures. Decision-making would likely be dominated by male-led institutions like the military and governments, prioritizing militarized solutions while sidelining the needs and experiences of women. Feminist theorists would critique this approach, highlighting how traditional security measures\u2014such as border fortifications and military interventions\u2014often ignore the everyday struggles faced by women and marginalized communities during crises. In a zombie outbreak, survival wouldn\u2019t just depend on guns and walls; it would also require addressing food security, healthcare, and social stability\u2014areas where women often play critical but undervalued roles.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\" data-start=\"1107\" data-end=\"2626\" data-is-last-node=\"\">In World<em data-start=\"1751\" data-end=\"1764\"> War Z<\/em>, much of the response is centered around military solutions and state-led efforts, with little attention paid to how women experience the crisis differently. Feminist theorists would argue that these narratives overlook key aspects of survival, such as the burden of caregiving, the increased risk of gender-based violence in chaotic conditions, and the lack of representation of women in leadership roles making critical policy decisions. In many zombie films and shows, women are often depicted as secondary characters, caregivers, or victims rather than as central decision-makers. Feminist IR theory challenges these traditional portrayals, arguing that addressing a global crisis\u2014whether a real pandemic or a fictional zombie apocalypse\u2014requires recognizing and addressing the unique challenges faced by women, rather than treating them as an afterthought.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Feminist IR also introduces the concept of gendered security, emphasizing that traditional approaches to security\u2014focused on state borders and military defense\u2014often neglect the human security needs of marginalized groups, especially women. For example, as food supplies dwindle, women in many societies are the ones primarily responsible for providing for their families, putting them at greater risk in dangerous, zombie-infested environments. Feminists would push for a more inclusive approach to security, one that considers the safety and well-being of all people, not just the protection of the state.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><!--nextpage--><\/p>\r\n\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\">Conclusion: What We Can Learn from a Zombie Apocalypse<\/h2>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">By imagining how different international relations theories would respond to a zombie apocalypse, using World War Z as our guide, you\u2019ve seen how each theory interprets state behavior, power structures, and global interactions under extreme pressure. Realism zeroes in on power and survival, focusing on competition and security. Liberalism highlights the potential for cooperation through institutions and shared interests. Constructivism emphasizes how ideas, norms, and identities shape the way states react to crises. Marxism uncovers how economic inequalities persist even in apocalyptic situations, and feminism challenges us to see how global events disproportionately affect women, often overlooked in mainstream responses.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\r\n<p class=\"indent\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">Together, these theories offer a powerful toolkit for understanding how the world might react to major crises\u2014whether facing zombies or real-world global challenges. By using World War Z as a lens, you\u2019ve learned to compare and contrast the fundamental principles of realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism, and feminism, and to apply these frameworks to analyze global political dynamics. Now that you\u2019ve seen how different theories hold up in a zombie apocalypse, let loose! You\u2019re now better equipped to understand how they shape our world\u2014even when the threats aren\u2019t undead!<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_85\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"300\"]<img class=\"size-medium wp-image-85\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Zombies-dancing-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"Zombies dancing in formal clothing. \" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" \/> Let loose! It's just a zombie apocalypse. Image generated by OpenAI\u2019s DALL\u00b7E.[\/caption]\r\n<p class=\"indent\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><!--nextpage--><\/p>\r\n\r\n<h2 class=\"indent\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Key Terms<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Anarchy (Constructivist View)<\/strong> \u2013 Unlike realism, constructivists view anarchy as a socially constructed concept that can be transformed by changing state identities and interactions.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Balance of Power<\/strong> \u2013 A concept where power is distributed among multiple states to prevent any single state from dominating the international system.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Collective Security<\/strong> \u2013 A system where states agree to jointly respond to threats or aggression against any one member, as seen in alliances like NATO.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Constructivism<\/strong> \u2013 A theory that emphasizes the role of ideas, norms, and identities in shaping state behavior and the international system.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Critical Theory<\/strong> \u2013 A broad approach in IR that critiques traditional theories like realism and liberalism, emphasizing issues of inequality, power structures, and emancipation.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Democratic Peace Theory<\/strong> \u2013 The idea that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other due to shared norms, values, and institutional constraints.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Dependency Theory<\/strong> \u2013 A Marxist theory that suggests wealthy nations exploit poorer ones, creating a global economic system of dependency that hinders development in less industrialized countries.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Feminism<\/strong>\u2013 A theory that focuses on how international relations affect women and how gender dynamics influence global politics, security, and power relations.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Gendered Security<\/strong> \u2013 The notion that traditional definitions of security focus on state-level threats and often overlook how global issues like war, poverty, and environmental degradation disproportionately affect women.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Hard Power<\/strong> \u2013\u00a0The use of military force, economic sanctions, or coercion to influence the behavior of other states.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Ideational Power<\/strong>- The ability to shape global outcomes by influencing beliefs, values, and perceptions rather than relying on material strength.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Institutional Norms<\/strong> \u2013 Shared expectations about appropriate behavior among states, which can influence international relations (e.g., norms against the use of nuclear weapons).<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Institutions<\/strong>-\u00a0Rules and organizations that structure state behavior and facilitate cooperation in international relations.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Interdependence<\/strong> \u2013 A condition where states are economically reliant on each other, reducing the likelihood of conflict because war would disrupt mutually beneficial trade.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Liberalism<\/strong> \u2013 An IR theory that emphasizes cooperation, international institutions, and interdependence among states as ways to mitigate conflict.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Marxism<\/strong> \u2013 A theory that views international relations primarily through the lens of economic class struggles, focusing on the exploitation of the working class by capitalist powers.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Patriarchy<\/strong> \u2013 The idea that politics is shaped by historically male-dominated institutions and that this influences state behavior and power dynamics.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Positive Sum<\/strong>- A situation where all parties can benefit, creating mutual gains rather than competition or conflict.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Realism<\/strong> \u2013 An IR theory emphasizing the competitive and conflictual side of international relations, focusing on power, national interest, and state survival in an anarchic system.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Security Dilemma<\/strong> \u2013 A situation where one state's actions to increase its security lead to other states feeling less secure, potentially causing an arms race.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Social Construction<\/strong>- International structures and relationships are shaped by shared ideas, norms, and identities rather than material forces.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Soft Power<\/strong>- The ability to influence others through attraction and persuasion, such as cultural influence or diplomacy, rather than force.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\r\n<p class=\"indent\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Zero Sum<\/strong>-\u00a0 When one state's gain directly results in another state's loss, with no net benefit for both parties.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n<div class=\"group\/conversation-turn relative flex w-full min-w-0 flex-col agent-turn\">\r\n<div class=\"flex-col gap-1 md:gap-3\">\r\n<div class=\"flex max-w-full flex-col flex-grow\">\r\n<div class=\"min-h-8 text-message flex w-full flex-col items-end gap-2 whitespace-normal break-words [.text-message+&amp;]:mt-5\" dir=\"auto\" data-message-author-role=\"assistant\" data-message-id=\"5555fc12-a2a4-4540-bc00-a0effb0de35c\" data-message-model-slug=\"gpt-4o\">\r\n<div class=\"flex w-full flex-col gap-1 empty:hidden first:pt-[3px]\">\r\n<div class=\"markdown prose w-full break-words dark:prose-invert light\">\r\n<h3 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Licenses and Attribution<\/strong><\/h3>\r\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\">CC Licensed Content, Original<\/h4>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span data-teams=\"true\">This educational material includes AI-generated content from ChatGPT by OpenAI. The original content created by Eric Fiske and Deborah Barr from Hillsborough Community College is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (<a id=\"menur5so\" class=\"fui-Link ___1q1shib f2hkw1w f3rmtva f1ewtqcl fyind8e f1k6fduh f1w7gpdv fk6fouc fjoy568 figsok6 f1s184ao f1mk8lai fnbmjn9 f1o700av f13mvf36 f1cmlufx f9n3di6 f1ids18y f1tx3yz7 f1deo86v f1eh06m1 f1iescvh fhgqx19 f1olyrje f1p93eir f1nev41a f1h8hb77 f1lqvz6u f10aw75t fsle3fq f17ae5zn\" title=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc\/4.0\/deed.en\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc\/4.0\/deed.en\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"Link CC BY-NC 4.0\">CC BY-NC 4.0<\/a>).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"flex-shrink-0 flex flex-col relative items-end\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">\r\n<div>\r\n<div class=\"pt-0\">\r\n<div class=\"gizmo-bot-avatar flex h-8 w-8 items-center justify-center overflow-hidden rounded-full\">\r\n<div class=\"relative p-1 rounded-sm flex items-center justify-center bg-token-main-surface-primary text-token-text-primary h-8 w-8\">All images in this textbook generated with DALL-E are licensed under the terms provided by OpenAI, allowing for their free use, modification, and distribution with appropriate attribution.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n<hr \/>\r\n\r\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>CC Licensed Content Included<\/strong><\/h4>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Future is Feminist<\/strong>\r\nImage by James McNellis\r\nLicense: CC BY 2.0<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Global cooperation<\/strong>\r\nSource: Trump White House Archive\r\nPublic domain.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<hr \/>\r\n\r\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\">Other Licensed Content Included<\/h4>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>World war Z | action scene| evacuate| 1\/10<\/strong>\r\nVideo by Jaja.\r\nLicense: Standard YouTube License.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>World war Z | action scene| The beginning| 1\/10<\/strong>\r\nVideo by Jaja.\r\nLicense: Standard YouTube License.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"<div style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\n<h2 class=\"indent\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">Introduction<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In this chapter, we\u2019ll dive into the major theories that scholars use to make sense of global politics\u2014realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism, and feminism. These theories are more than just academic jargon; they are powerful tools for understanding why states behave the way they do. Whether it\u2019s navigating alliances, responding to crises, or vying for dominance, these frameworks reveal the motives, strategies, and power structures that shape our world. To make things a bit more engaging, we\u2019ll step away from dry textbook examples and instead imagine how the world might react to something a little more\u2026 unconventional: a zombie apocalypse. Yes, zombies! It\u2019s the perfect way to bring these theories to life (or undead life, as the case may be), showing how they operate in an extreme and chaotic scenario.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">But before we start fortifying bunkers and debating zombie containment policies, let\u2019s remember the real goal: understanding how these theories interpret state behavior during moments of crisis. Realism\u2019s gritty focus on survival and power gives us one lens, while liberalism\u2019s optimism about cooperation through institutions provides another. Constructivism pushes us to consider the influence of ideas and norms, Marxism critiques the role of economic inequality, and feminism urges us to think about who is overlooked in traditional analyses. By the end of this chapter, you won\u2019t just know the definitions\u2014you\u2019ll see these theories in action, from the battlefield to the negotiating table, whether in a zombie apocalypse or the real world. So buckle up\u2014together, we\u2019ll tackle the big questions of international relations and maybe even survive the zombies in the process.<\/p>\n<h3 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>SPOILER WARNING<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This chapter will reference specific characters and events from the film <em>World War Z<\/em>, some of which may spoil major plot points. If you would like to watch the film before you continue, I highly recommend it. HCC students can watch the film for free through our library&#8217;s Swank account here: <a href=\"https:\/\/digitalcampus-swankmp-net.eu1.proxy.openathens.net\/hccfl366926\/watch\/179F203E0AE42652?referrer=direct\"><em>World War Z<\/em> (2013)<\/a>\u00a0Not an HCC student? Check your streaming platforms or local library for access!<\/p>\n<div style=\"font-weight: 400; text-align: justify;\">\n<p><!--nextpage --><\/p>\n<h2>Learning Outcomes<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li data-leveltext=\"\uf0d8\" data-font=\"Wingdings\" data-listid=\"3\" data-list-defn-props=\"{&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559683&quot;:0,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:360,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Wingdings&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[8226],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;\uf0d8&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}\" data-aria-posinset=\"1\" data-aria-level=\"1\">By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li data-leveltext=\"o\" data-font=\"Courier New\" data-listid=\"3\" data-list-defn-props=\"{&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559683&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:1080,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Courier New&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[9675],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;o&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}\" data-aria-posinset=\"1\" data-aria-level=\"2\">Explain the fundamental principles of realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism, and feminist theories in international relations.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li data-leveltext=\"o\" data-font=\"Courier New\" data-listid=\"3\" data-list-defn-props=\"{&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559683&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:1080,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Courier New&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[9675],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;o&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}\" data-aria-posinset=\"2\" data-aria-level=\"2\">Compare and contrast how different IR theories interpret state behavior, power structures, and global interactions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li data-leveltext=\"o\" data-font=\"Courier New\" data-listid=\"3\" data-list-defn-props=\"{&quot;335552541&quot;:1,&quot;335559683&quot;:1,&quot;335559684&quot;:-2,&quot;335559685&quot;:1080,&quot;335559991&quot;:360,&quot;469769226&quot;:&quot;Courier New&quot;,&quot;469769242&quot;:[9675],&quot;469777803&quot;:&quot;left&quot;,&quot;469777804&quot;:&quot;o&quot;,&quot;469777815&quot;:&quot;hybridMultilevel&quot;}\" data-aria-posinset=\"3\" data-aria-level=\"2\">Apply key theoretical frameworks to contemporary international issues and evaluate their effectiveness in explaining global political dynamics.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><!--nextpage --><\/p>\n<h2>2.1: Case Study- Zombies, Theories, and \u201cWorld War Z\u201d<\/h2>\n<p class=\"indent\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">Before we look at different IR theories we have to pause for a moment and answer the truly important question of this chapter: What is a zombie? \ud83e\udddf A zombie is typically depicted as a reanimated corpse or infected human, mindlessly driven by a primal urge\u2014usually to consume human flesh. In pop culture, zombies are often slow-moving but relentless. But zombies are rarely just monsters; they are powerful metaphors. They often embody both our fears of death and our anxieties about losing control. They can even symbolize mass consumerism, where society mindlessly follows trends without question, or reflect fears of societal collapse, representing what could happen if order and structure break down. Sometimes zombies stand for disease and contagion, embodying our dread of outbreaks that turn loved ones into threats. Through these symbols, zombies provide a way to examine our deeper fears, but pop culture can also shape our view of real-world events in problematic ways. By framing crises or conflicts as zombie-like threats, we may oversimplify complex situations or dehumanize others, leading to misunderstandings and reinforcing negative stereotypes about certain groups or global issues. Take a listen to this podcast of the article &#8220;Metaphor of the Living Dead&#8221; by political scientist Daniel Drezner to consider the implications of using zombies in pop culture.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>PODCAST: &#8220;Metaphor of the Living Dead&#8221; by political scientist Daniel Drezner (Drezner, 2014)<\/strong><\/p>\n<div id=\"h5p-11\">\n<div class=\"h5p-iframe-wrapper\"><iframe id=\"h5p-iframe-11\" class=\"h5p-iframe\" data-content-id=\"11\" style=\"height:1px\" src=\"about:blank\" frameBorder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" title=\"PODCAST: \u201cMetaphor of the Living Dead\u201d by political scientist Daniel Drezner Transcript\"><\/iframe><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In this chapter, we will use the film <em>World War Z <\/em>to better understand theories of international relations. In <em>World War Z<\/em>, we follow Gerry Lane, a former UN investigator, as he races against time to stop a global zombie pandemic. The outbreak spreads like wildfire, threatening the survival of humanity. We see as Lane travels across the world\u2014from South Korea to Israel and beyond\u2014searching for the origins of the virus and a way to stop it. Along the way, we see governments respond in different ways, with some building defenses and others collapsing under the pressure. Eventually, Lane discovers a method to make humans invisible to zombies, offering hope in the face of chaos and destruction. Watch the opening scene from\u00a0<em>World War Z\u00a0<\/em>to get a better sense of just how a zombie outbreak might start!<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" id=\"oembed-1\" title=\"World war Z | action scene | The beginning| 1\/10\" width=\"500\" height=\"281\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/GOPtUPP-IOQ?feature=oembed&#38;rel=0\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<div id=\"h5p-10\">\n<div class=\"h5p-iframe-wrapper\"><iframe id=\"h5p-iframe-10\" class=\"h5p-iframe\" data-content-id=\"10\" style=\"height:1px\" src=\"about:blank\" frameBorder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" title=\"World war Z | action scene | The beginning| 1\/10: Transcript\"><\/iframe><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Now, imagine using a fictional event like a zombie apocalypse to delve into how different international relations (IR) theories might respond. A crisis of this scale\u2014global, existential, and chaotic\u2014pushes governments, institutions, and societies to their breaking points. It forces you to think about how states would prioritize their actions and interact with one another under extreme stress. Would states isolate themselves and focus solely on their own survival, or would they collaborate to find a solution? This is where IR theories come into play. Each theory\u2014realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism, and feminism\u2014offers a unique lens for interpreting state behavior, global dynamics, and the power structures that shape international responses. But what really is a &#8220;theory&#8221; and how do they function in IR research?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\" data-start=\"0\" data-end=\"875\">When people hear the word \u201ctheory,\u201d they often think it means a simple guess or speculation. In everyday conversation, someone might say, \u201cI have a theory about who ate the last slice of pizza,\u201d when what they really mean is a hypothesis\u2014a possible explanation that hasn\u2019t been fully tested. This misunderstanding can lead to confusion, especially when discussing scientific theories, which are well-researched explanations supported by evidence. For example, in the real world, the germ theory of disease isn\u2019t just a guess; it\u2019s a thoroughly tested and widely accepted explanation of how illnesses spread through microscopic organisms. In the world of zombies, someone might say, \u201cI have a theory that zombies only attack humans because they miss social interaction,\u201d but without evidence, that\u2019s really just a fun (potentially dangerous) hypothesis rather than a true scientific theory.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\" data-start=\"877\" data-end=\"1848\" data-is-last-node=\"\">In political science, theories serve an essential purpose: they help us make sense of complex patterns in global politics and explain why states behave the way they do. Theories provide a framework for analyzing past events, understanding current affairs, and even predicting future political behavior. For example, democratic peace theory suggests that democracies are less likely to go to war with one another because of shared norms and institutional constraints. This theory isn\u2019t just a random idea\u2014it\u2019s built on extensive research and historical evidence. In a zombie scenario, an international relations theory could help explain how governments might react to an outbreak. A realist theory, for instance, would predict that states prioritize their own survival, building walls and stockpiling resources rather than working together. In both real and fictional crises, political theories give us the tools to understand and analyze complex global interactions.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">By exploring how states might respond to zombies, you can begin to evaluate the key principles and assumptions underlying each theory. For instance, realism might highlight military survival and the inevitable competition between states for scarce resources like vaccines or safe zones. Liberalism, on the other hand, could emphasize the potential for international institutions and alliances to coordinate a collective response. Constructivism would encourage us to examine how states frame the zombie threat\u2014whether as an enemy to be eradicated or a humanitarian crisis requiring solidarity\u2014while Marxism would focus on how global capitalism and class dynamics determine which populations are most vulnerable. Feminism would urge us to look beyond state-level responses to consider how marginalized groups, particularly women, experience the crisis and contribute to its resolution. Fictional events like these are invaluable because they stress-test these theories, offering a hands-on way to compare and contrast how they interpret state behavior, power dynamics, and global interactions during a catastrophe.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_488\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-488\" style=\"width: 300px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-488 size-full\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/walking_dead_style_final.png\" alt=\"Zombies outside of a destroyed city.\" width=\"300\" height=\"199\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/walking_dead_style_final.png 300w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/walking_dead_style_final-65x43.png 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/walking_dead_style_final-225x149.png 225w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-488\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">A zombie apocalypse is one way to test an IR theory to better understand it&#8217;s foundational concepts. Image generated by OpenAI\u2019s DALL\u00b7E.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">By using the zombie apocalypse as a case study, you now have a unique opportunity to engage with international relations theories in a creative and critical way. Imagining states, institutions, and societies facing an existential threat allows you to explore how these theories function under pressure and assess their strengths and limitations. This exercise not only helps you think critically about global politics but also equips you with a better understanding of how states interact in times of crisis. Whether the crisis is fictional\u2014like a zombie apocalypse\u2014or real, such as climate change or pandemics, these theories provide essential tools for analyzing international relations. And who knows\u2014if zombies ever do show up, at least you\u2019ll be ready to analyze their foreign policy!<\/p>\n<p><!--nextpage --><\/p>\n<h2>2.2: Theory<\/h2>\n<p data-start=\"258\" data-end=\"1135\">At its core, a <strong><button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-1195\">theory<\/button> <\/strong>is a structured explanation or model that helps us make sense of complex phenomena by identifying patterns, causes, and relationships. Think of a theory as a mental map\u2014it doesn&#8217;t recreate the world in perfect detail, but it offers enough guidance to navigate it intelligently. In international relations, theories serve as frameworks that help scholars and policymakers understand why states behave the way they do, how conflicts arise, and what might foster cooperation. A <em data-start=\"789\" data-end=\"801\">hypothesis<\/em>, by contrast, is a specific, testable proposition often derived from a theory. For example, if Realist theory emphasizes power and survival, a hypothesis might propose that \u201cstates with increasing military capabilities are more likely to initiate conflict.\u201d In short, theories are the big-picture lenses; hypotheses are the zoom-ins.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"1137\" data-end=\"1883\">You\u2019ve probably heard someone dismiss an idea by saying it\u2019s \u201cjust a theory.\u201d But in the academic world\u2014especially in political science and international relations\u2014that phrase makes scholars wince. Theories are not wild guesses or untested whims. They\u2019re rigorously developed, debated, and often supported by decades of empirical observation and historical study. Kenneth Waltz\u2019s <em data-start=\"1551\" data-end=\"1585\">Theory of International Politics<\/em> (1979), for instance, reshaped the field by introducing structural realism, which remains a foundational theory even when people disagree with it. Theories can be revised or even replaced, but they\u2019re far from arbitrary\u2014they\u2019re essential tools for making sense of a world that often seems chaotic.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"1885\" data-end=\"2707\">Compared to other branches of political science, international relations leans heavily on theory. Why? Because IR deals with a uniquely anarchic environment\u2014there\u2019s no global government enforcing rules the way national governments do within states. This lack of central authority makes outcomes harder to predict and more reliant on theoretical interpretation. Without theory, we\u2019d just have a long list of facts\u2014wars, treaties, trade deals\u2014with no way to connect the dots. As we move into the next section, we\u2019ll explore six major IR theories that have each shaped the way scholars and policymakers think about global politics. Each offers a different lens\u2014sometimes overlapping, sometimes clashing\u2014but all are valuable in understanding the global stage and the drama that plays out on it.<\/p>\n<p><!--nextpage --><\/p>\n<h2>2.3: Realism<\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Imagine a world where every state is primarily concerned with its own survival, constantly wary of others. This is the central focus of realism, one of the most influential theories in international relations. <strong><button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-54\">Realism<\/button><\/strong> emphasizes the competitive and conflictual nature of global politics, operating on the assumption that each state behaves as a <strong><button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-97\">unitary actor<\/button><\/strong>\u2014a cohesive entity that makes decisions based solely on national interest, without internal divisions or competing interests. Like chess players, states are driven by a desire to accumulate power and secure their interests in a dangerous and anarchic world where no central authority exists to enforce rules or mediate disputes. As a result, realists argue, states are often locked in a struggle for dominance or, at the very least, for survival, and their behavior reflects this constant vigilance.<\/p>\n<p>One of the core pillars of realism is the concept of <button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-207\"><strong>hard power<\/strong><\/button>\u2014the use of military and economic tools by states to influence the behavior of others. Realists argue that in an anarchic international system, where no central authority exists to enforce rules or ensure peace, power becomes the primary currency. As such, states rely on tangible capabilities\u2014troops, tanks, aircraft carriers, and economic leverage\u2014to secure their interests. Hans Morgenthau, one of the founding figures of classical realism, emphasized that international politics is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature, and at the center of those laws is the pursuit of power. In his seminal work Politics Among Nations (1948), Morgenthau argues that political leaders must think and act in terms of national interest defined as power, especially military power, to survive in a competitive international environment. For realists, then, the ability to project hard power isn\u2019t just a policy choice\u2014it\u2019s a necessity for survival and influence on the world stage.<\/p>\n<p>Two notable examples of hard power in action are the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and the international sanctions imposed on Iran. In the case of Iraq, the U.S. justified its military intervention on the grounds that Saddam Hussein&#8217;s regime posed a threat to global security due to alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). While the existence of such weapons was later disproven, the operation reflected a realist mindset: removing a perceived threat through overwhelming force to protect national interests and reshape the regional balance of power. This use of direct military force exemplifies hard power\u2019s most visible form\u2014war. In contrast, the campaign of economic sanctions against Iran, particularly those aimed at halting its nuclear program, illustrates a more subtle but still coercive application of hard power. By restricting Iran\u2019s access to global markets and freezing financial assets, the United States and its allies sought to pressure the Iranian government into compliance without firing a single shot. Both cases demonstrate how realism views coercion\u2014whether through bombs or bank freezes\u2014as a necessary tool in a world defined by competition and insecurity.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_78\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-78\" style=\"width: 300px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-78 size-medium\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Realism-300x300.webp\" alt=\"Soliders and military vehicles outside of a city.\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Realism-300x300.webp 300w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Realism-150x150.webp 150w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Realism-768x768.webp 768w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Realism-65x65.webp 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Realism-225x225.webp 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Realism-350x350.webp 350w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Realism.webp 1024w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-78\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Military might, or hard power, is fundamental to realism. Image generated by OpenAI\u2019s DALL\u00b7E.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This focus on power and security can lead to what is known as the <strong><button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-57\">security dilemma<\/button><\/strong>. The security dilemma occurs when one state&#8217;s actions to increase its own security\u2014such as building up its military\u2014make other states feel less secure. This often triggers a cycle of suspicion and arms races. One state\u2019s pursuit of defense is seen by others as a potential threat, so they build up their own forces in response. The Cold War provides a textbook example of this dilemma: the United States and the Soviet Union both expanded their nuclear arsenals out of fear that the other side might gain an advantage. What started as defensive actions by each side eventually spiraled into a full-blown arms race. The security dilemma illustrates how, in the realist world, even efforts to stay safe can make everyone feel less secure.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This brings us to the idea of <strong><button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-58\">zero-sum<\/button><\/strong> dynamics, another key feature of realism. In a zero-sum game, one side\u2019s gain is always another side\u2019s loss\u2014there\u2019s no room for mutual benefit. Realists argue that international politics often operates in this manner. If one state increases its power, another state inevitably loses relative power. This logic is evident in territorial disputes, where control over land or resources is finite, and one state&#8217;s gain comes directly at another&#8217;s expense. For example, the ongoing South China Sea dispute pits several nations against each other over control of valuable maritime territory. Any gains in sovereignty or resources by one state result in losses for the others. In such zero-sum situations, compromise or cooperation is difficult because states are inherently focused on maximizing their own gains.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">To manage the persistent risk of conflict in international relations, realism emphasizes the importance of maintaining a <button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-59\">balance of power<\/button>. This foundational concept refers to a distribution of capabilities among states in which no single actor becomes powerful enough to dominate all others. In the realist worldview, states are inherently self-interested and exist in a condition of anarchy\u2014without a global authority to enforce rules or guarantee peace. As such, states must constantly assess and respond to the relative power of others. The structure of the international system can take different forms: a unipolar system, where one state holds overwhelming dominance (as the U.S. did after the Cold War); a bipolar system, where two major powers balance each other (as during the U.S.\u2013Soviet rivalry of the Cold War); or a multipolar system, where power is distributed among several states (as in Europe before World War I). Realists argue that regardless of the configuration, states will engage in balancing behaviors\u2014forming alliances, building military capabilities, or pursuing deterrence\u2014to prevent any one actor from becoming too powerful. The goal isn\u2019t necessarily peace, but rather stability through fear and equilibrium, where the risks of aggression are high enough to discourage it.<\/p>\n<p>History offers compelling examples of the balance of power in action, particularly in 19th-century Europe. After the upheaval of the Napoleonic Wars, European states recognized the need to prevent any single power\u2014like Napoleonic France\u2014from overwhelming the continent again. The resulting diplomatic strategy involved a web of shifting alliances among major powers such as Britain, France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia. This approach culminated in the Congress of Vienna in 1815, which aimed to restore equilibrium by reestablishing traditional monarchies and territorial boundaries. Britain, for instance, frequently acted as an offshore balancer, supporting coalitions that opposed whichever continental power seemed most threatening at the time. These maneuvers weren&#8217;t driven by ideology or shared values, but by cold calculations of interest and threat\u2014classic realist behavior. The long peace that followed, known as the Concert of Europe, illustrates how a carefully managed balance of power can reduce the likelihood of major war, even among rival states. But that&#8217;s all ancient history. How would realism respond if, say, a zombie apocolypse were to break out?!<\/p>\n<h3>Realism: Power, Survival, and Keeping Zombies Off Your Lawn<\/h3>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">When the dead start rising, don\u2019t expect countries to hold hands and sing \u201cKumbaya.\u201d At least, that&#8217;s what a realist would say! If we view the zombie apocalypse through the lens of realism, the international response would be characterized by a fierce competition for survival. Realists believe the international system is anarchic\u2014there\u2019s no overarching authority to control the actions of states. In a zombie crisis, states would focus on their own survival, securing borders, and amassing military power (including hard power like weapons and secure strongholds) to protect their populations from both zombies and other states. For example, in <em>World War Z<\/em>, Israel\u2019s decision to build a massive wall around its borders early on is a classic realist move: prioritize national security at all costs, even if it means isolating oneself from global cooperation.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Realists would expect a security dilemma to unfold during a zombie apocalypse, as states prioritize their own survival and view others with suspicion. If one country begins stockpiling military equipment and fortifying its borders to fight zombies, neighboring states might perceive this as a potential threat rather than just a defensive measure. In response, they too would amass weapons and resources\u2014not only to combat the undead but also to prepare for possible opportunistic attacks from rival states. This creates a zero-sum situation, where one state&#8217;s increase in security makes others feel less safe, leading to an escalating arms race. As resources like food, medicine, and safe zones become scarce, fear and mistrust could push states toward preemptive invasions, seizing supplies before others have the chance. Instead of uniting against the zombie threat, nations might spiral into conflicts driven by self-preservation, proving that even in the face of an apocalyptic crisis, realists believe states would see each other as their greatest competitors\u2014perhaps even more dangerous than the walking dead themselves.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Realism, with its focus on power, competition, and conflict, offers a straightforward explanation for much of state behavior in international politics. However, it is not without its critics. Some argue that this theory overemphasizes conflict and neglects cooperation, which will be explored in greater depth when we discuss alternative theories like liberalism in the next section. While realism provides a powerful lens for understanding the competitive nature of international relations, it may not fully account for the instances where states do manage to work together for mutual benefit. Nonetheless, understanding realism is crucial for grasping why global politics so often seems like a high-stakes game where survival, not cooperation, is the ultimate prize.<\/p>\n<p><!--nextpage --><\/p>\n<h2>2.4: Liberalism<\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If realism sees the world as a bar fight waiting to happen, liberalism is the friend trying to mediate before anyone throws a punch. While realism views the international system as a battlefield of competing powers, liberalism offers a more optimistic perspective. In contrast to the conflict-focused view of realism, <button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-60\"><strong>liberalism<\/strong><\/button> emphasizes the potential for cooperation and mutual benefit among states. According to liberal theory, international relations don\u2019t always have to be a zero-sum game. States can work together through diplomacy, trade, and shared institutions to achieve common goals, reduce conflict, and foster peace. By focusing on the ways states can cooperate, liberalism highlights a more collaborative, interconnected world where power is not just about military might but also about influence, attraction, and collective action.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">One of the key ways liberalism sets itself apart from realism is in its emphasis on <button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-61\"><strong>soft power<\/strong><\/button>\u2014the ability of a state to influence others not through coercion or force, but through attraction, persuasion, and legitimacy. Coined by political scientist Joseph Nye, soft power reflects a state&#8217;s capacity to shape the preferences and behavior of others by making its values, culture, and institutions appealing. In contrast to realism\u2019s focus on survival and power maximization, liberalism believes that cooperation, mutual benefits, and shared norms can shape global politics. Tools of soft power include diplomacy, cultural exchange, education programs, and the global promotion of ideas like democracy and human rights. For example, the international popularity of American movies, music, universities, and technology brands isn&#8217;t just cultural fluff\u2014it\u2019s a form of influence that helps legitimize U.S. leadership and foster goodwill. From a liberal perspective, this kind of influence makes conflict less likely, as states are more inclined to cooperate with countries they admire and share values with.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A powerful illustration of soft power at work can be found during the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet Union competed not only through arms races and proxy wars, but also through a battle of ideologies and lifestyles. The U.S. promoted consumerism, political freedom, and pop culture as part of a broader campaign to portray liberal democracy as the more desirable model. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union advanced a counter-narrative centered on socialism, equality, and collective identity. This rivalry played out in radio broadcasts, Olympic games, educational exchanges, and even in space exploration\u2014each side trying to convince the world that its way of life was superior. Liberal theory sees this as a clear demonstration that ideas and institutions matter, and that the ability to win hearts and minds is as strategically important as military force. Soft power is central to the liberal belief that international influence can be built through cooperation, respect, and shared identity\u2014not just dominance.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Liberalism also underscores the importance of <button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-62\"><strong>institutions<\/strong><\/button> in fostering cooperation between states. Institutions are the rules, norms, and organizations that structure state behavior in the international system. These can include formal entities like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, or the International Monetary Fund, as well as informal norms that guide state interactions. Institutions provide a framework for resolving disputes, creating trust, and promoting cooperation. For example, the European Union has created a complex set of rules and institutions that not only facilitate economic cooperation but also prevent conflicts between member states. By providing regular forums for dialogue, monitoring compliance, and offering mechanisms for conflict resolution, institutions reduce the unpredictability and mistrust that often lead to war.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_80\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-80\" style=\"width: 300px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-80\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/United-Nations-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Diplomats seated at the General Assembly hall of the United Nations.\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/United-Nations-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/United-Nations-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/United-Nations-65x43.jpg 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/United-Nations-225x150.jpg 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/United-Nations-350x233.jpg 350w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/United-Nations.jpg 1024w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-80\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Global cooperation, such as diplomats working together an institution like the United Nations, is a key goal of liberalism. Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/media.licdn.com\/dms\/image\/v2\/C4D12AQEa3C1X3I2SFA\/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280\/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280\/0\/1631343464691?e=1744243200&amp;v=beta&amp;t=4-gv2G1wMZ31QO_Ens71gymP--Yd2jyIjLtZ7CznAw8\">Trump White House Archive<\/a>. public domain.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Liberalism envisions the international system as capable of producing <strong><button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-63\">positive-sum<\/button><\/strong> outcomes, where cooperation benefits all parties involved. In a positive-sum scenario, states aren\u2019t competing for limited resources where one side&#8217;s gain equals another&#8217;s loss. Instead, they can all benefit through collaboration. Trade agreements, for example, often create positive-sum dynamics where all participating countries can enjoy economic growth, improved standards of living, and access to goods. The success of global trade organizations, like the World Trade Organization (WTO), is rooted in the idea that trade can generate benefits for all involved, as long as there are fair rules in place. This stands in contrast to the zero-sum thinking of realism and demonstrates how, from a liberal perspective, international politics can be about win-win outcomes.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The concept of <strong><button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-64\">interdependence<\/button><\/strong> lies at the heart of liberal international relations theory. It refers to the mutual reliance between states, especially through economic connections like trade, finance, and supply chains. Liberals argue that as states become more economically interwoven, the incentives for violent conflict diminish\u2014because war would not just harm enemies, but hurt one&#8217;s own economy in the process. This idea became especially prominent in the work of Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, who introduced the concept of \u201ccomplex interdependence\u201d in the 1970s. They challenged the realist assumption that power politics and military force always dominate international outcomes. Instead, they argued that in a highly connected world, economic, environmental, and technological issues create overlapping interests that make cooperation both necessary and beneficial. In this framework, diplomacy, international institutions, and global markets play a larger role in fostering peace than tanks or missiles.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A powerful example of interdependence in action is the economic relationship between the United States and China. Despite rising tensions over trade policies, cybersecurity, and regional influence, the two countries remain deeply connected through massive bilateral trade, foreign direct investment, and supply chain integration. American companies depend on Chinese manufacturing, while Chinese growth relies heavily on exports and access to U.S. markets. While political leaders on both sides have voiced concerns\u2014and even engaged in trade disputes\u2014these economic ties act as a form of restraint, making outright conflict less likely. Liberal theorists argue that this web of mutual economic interest raises the cost of war to a level that discourages aggressive action. In essence, why bomb your trading partner when both of your stock markets would tank? Interdependence doesn&#8217;t eliminate conflict entirely, but it shifts state behavior toward negotiation, compromise, and economic diplomacy over brute force.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Another important liberal concept is <strong><button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-65\">collective security<\/button><\/strong>, which suggests that peace can be maintained when states agree to protect one another against aggression. In a collective security system, an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, prompting a united response. The most famous example of this is NATO, where members have pledged to defend each other in case of external aggression. This idea stands in contrast to the balance of power thinking in realism, where states constantly seek to counterbalance potential threats. In a collective security arrangement, the goal is not to prepare for inevitable conflict but to prevent it altogether by deterring aggressors through the promise of a coordinated response.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A key contribution of liberalism to international relations is the <button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-66\"><strong>Democratic Peace Theory<\/strong><\/button>, which posits that democracies are significantly less likely to go to war with one another. This theory is grounded in the belief that democratic states share certain structural and cultural characteristics that reduce the risk of conflict. These include transparency in decision-making, public accountability, free press, and checks and balances that make it more difficult for leaders to engage in aggressive or unilateral military actions. In democracies, leaders must answer to voters and legislatures, and there is often robust debate over the costs and justifications of war. The roots of this idea go back to Immanuel Kant\u2019s 1795 essay Perpetual Peace, in which he argued that a federation of republican states could lead to lasting peace. Modern liberal scholars like Bruce Russett (1993) and Michael Doyle (1983) have provided empirical support for the theory, highlighting how democratic norms and institutions constrain violent behavior between democratic nations.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Empirical studies of international conflict support the Democratic Peace Theory, showing that while democracies do go to war, they rarely go to war with each other. A widely cited example is the long-standing peace between the United States and Canada, two mature democracies with deep economic ties, shared cultural values, and strong political institutions. Despite occasional disagreements\u2014over trade, Arctic sovereignty, or defense spending\u2014the relationship has remained peaceful for well over a century, largely managed through diplomacy rather than force. This stands in contrast to relations between democracies and non-democracies, where conflict remains more likely. From a liberal perspective, this pattern offers hope: if democracy can spread globally, so too can the zones of peace. The Democratic Peace Theory thus reinforces liberalism\u2019s optimistic vision\u2014that through shared governance, norms, and cooperation, the international system can become more stable, less violent, and more just over time. But would this peaceful behavior continue in the face of hordes of the undead at your doorstep?<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3>Liberalism: Fighting Zombies with Friendship and Committees<\/h3>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If realism prepares for a zombie apocalypse by building walls and stockpiling weapons, liberalism is busy organizing a global task force and drafting a &#8220;Zombies Without Borders&#8221; treaty. Liberalism would focus on cooperation and collective action to combat the zombie threat. Liberals believe that, despite the anarchic nature of international politics, states can work together through institutions and diplomacy to overcome shared challenges. The outbreak of zombies would prompt immediate international collaboration, with states working through institutions like the United Nations or the World Health Organization to coordinate responses, share information, and allocate resources. In World War Z, we see hints of this liberal approach when scientists and governments collaborate to find a cure, emphasizing that cooperation is not only possible but essential for global survival. Check out the following scene from <em>World War Z\u00a0<\/em>to see how the UN might use its global cooperative power to respond to a zombie outbreak.<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" id=\"oembed-2\" title=\"World war Z | action scene| evacuate| 3\/10\" width=\"500\" height=\"281\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/gZrVufisbsU?feature=oembed&#38;rel=0\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<div id=\"h5p-12\">\n<div class=\"h5p-iframe-wrapper\"><iframe id=\"h5p-iframe-12\" class=\"h5p-iframe\" data-content-id=\"12\" style=\"height:1px\" src=\"about:blank\" frameBorder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" title=\"World war Z | action scene| evacuate| 3\/10: Transcript\"><\/iframe><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The liberal emphasis on interdependence would be crucial in a zombie apocalypse, reinforcing the idea that no state can survive alone\u2014especially when facing a relentless, borderless threat. Since zombies don\u2019t respect national boundaries, the survival of any one state is directly tied to the survival of others. Even the most fortified nations would quickly realize they depend on global trade for essential supplies like food, medicine, and fuel. Additionally, medical research must be shared to develop a vaccine or cure as quickly as possible, ensuring that scientific breakthroughs benefit all of humanity rather than being hoarded for strategic advantage. Liberalism would also highlight the importance of positive-sum outcomes, where cooperation leads to mutual benefit rather than cutthroat competition. Instead of stockpiling resources and viewing others as threats, states could pool their expertise, infrastructure, and technological advancements to combat the zombie crisis more effectively. One country might develop a treatment, another might have the manufacturing capacity to mass-produce it, and another could provide the logistics to distribute it globally. Rather than descending into chaos and conflict, liberalism suggests that states would recognize their shared interests and work together, proving that even in an apocalyptic crisis, diplomacy, institutions, and cooperation remain essential tools for survival.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Liberalism, with its focus on cooperation, interdependence, and institutions, offers a compelling alternative to the more conflict-driven worldview of realism. However, just like realism, it has its limitations and critics, especially when cooperation fails, or when institutions are unable to prevent conflict. In the next section, we\u2019ll explore constructivism, a theory that highlights the role of ideas, identities, and norms in shaping international relations, providing yet another lens through which to understand global politics.<\/p>\n<p><!--nextpage --><\/p>\n<h2>2.5: Constructivism<\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If zombies have taught us anything, it\u2019s that what truly makes a monster isn\u2019t just rotting flesh\u2014it\u2019s how society perceives it. Imagine if the world we see in international politics wasn&#8217;t shaped just by military power, economic interests, or treaties, but by shared ideas, values, and beliefs. This is the essence of <strong><button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-67\">constructivism<\/button><\/strong>, an influential theory in international relations. Constructivism focuses on how the identities, ideas, and social norms that states hold influence their behavior. Unlike realism and liberalism, which emphasize material forces like military strength or economic ties, constructivism argues that the international system is socially constructed\u2014shaped by human beliefs and shared understandings. The theory challenges the notion that state behavior is driven purely by objective, fixed factors, suggesting instead that the way states interact and perceive each other can evolve based on changing ideas and norms.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">At the heart of constructivism is the idea of <button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-68\"><strong>social construction<\/strong><\/button>\u2014the belief that many of the things we treat as \u201creal\u201d in international relations are not fixed, objective facts, but instead products of shared ideas, beliefs, and norms. In this view, the international system isn&#8217;t just something we observe\u2014it&#8217;s something we actively build and maintain through our interactions and assumptions. Take the example of democracy. You can\u2019t hold democracy in your hands or hear it humming in the background, but does that mean it isn\u2019t real? Of course not. Living in a democracy profoundly shapes a person\u2019s life\u2014from having the right to vote to enjoying civil liberties and rule of law. Its \u201creality\u201d is socially constructed through common understanding and institutional practice. In the same way, constructivists argue that key elements of international relations\u2014such as sovereignty, legitimacy, or even who counts as a &#8220;state&#8221;\u2014are only real because we agree they are. They exist not in nature, but in shared meaning.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">To see how constructivism plays out in global politics, consider the example of nuclear weapons. A realist might argue that nukes are simply powerful tools of deterrence\u2014whoever has them can prevent attack by threatening devastating retaliation. But constructivists dig deeper: they ask how and why states interpret nuclear weapons the way they do. Are they ultimate deterrents, national status symbols, or existential threats? The answer depends on a state\u2019s identity, its values, and the global norms it internalizes. For instance, the strong international taboo against the use of nuclear weapons isn\u2019t a natural law\u2014it\u2019s a socially constructed norm that has developed over time through diplomatic agreements, political discourse, and public opinion. The fact that nuclear-armed states refrain from using these weapons, even in extreme circumstances, shows how much shared ideas shape behavior. Constructivism helps us understand that power in international relations isn\u2019t just about tanks and treaties\u2014it\u2019s also about ideas, expectations, and meaning.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A powerful example of the influence of <strong><button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-69\">institutional norms<\/button><\/strong> can be seen in the widespread international taboo against the use of nuclear weapons. Although several states possess these weapons, there is a shared expectation that they should not be used in warfare, largely due to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences. This norm has been reinforced through treaties like the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the broader diplomatic culture that frames nuclear weapons as dangerous and destabilizing. Institutional norms create a kind of &#8220;invisible hand&#8221; in international relations, guiding state behavior not through force but through shared expectations of what is acceptable. In this way, institutional norms can constrain even powerful states, demonstrating how ideas and values can be just as important as material capabilities.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_81\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-81\" style=\"width: 300px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-81\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Liberalism-Theory-Picture-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"Diplomats seated around a table. Flags as puzzle pieces implies creating shared norms.\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Liberalism-Theory-Picture-300x300.jpg 300w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Liberalism-Theory-Picture-150x150.jpg 150w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Liberalism-Theory-Picture-768x768.jpg 768w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Liberalism-Theory-Picture-65x65.jpg 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Liberalism-Theory-Picture-225x225.jpg 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Liberalism-Theory-Picture-350x350.jpg 350w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Liberalism-Theory-Picture.jpg 1024w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-81\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Constructivism argues that through dialogue, states can begin to create a shared reality. Image generated by OpenAI\u2019s DALL\u00b7E.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Constructivism introduces a powerful but often overlooked form of influence in international relations: <button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-70\"><strong>ideational power<\/strong><\/button>. Unlike hard power (military might) or even soft power (cultural attraction), ideational power is the ability to shape global outcomes by influencing beliefs, values, norms, and perceptions. It\u2019s about controlling the narrative\u2014defining what is considered legitimate, moral, or appropriate behavior on the international stage. Scholars such as Martha Finnemore and Katzenstein have been influential in developing this aspect of constructivist theory. In her book National Interests in International Society (1996), Finnemore argues that states\u2019 interests and actions are deeply shaped by international norms\u2014shared ideas about what \u201cgood\u201d states do. Similarly, Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall (2005) have analyzed power as part of their broader typology of power in international relations, highlighting how the ability to shape knowledge and identity can influence actors just as much as direct control can. From a constructivist perspective, ideas are not just reflections of power\u2014they are power.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">You can see ideational power at work in the global influence of international human rights organizations. These groups often lack military forces or massive budgets, yet they shape global politics by influencing how states and societies define justice, fairness, and legitimacy. When Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch reports abuses, it can spark diplomatic pressure, reputational costs, or even legal action\u2014not because these NGOs have guns, but because their moral authority and credibility shape how the world sees an issue. Another compelling case is the global movement to combat climate change. There is no world government with the power to force states to cut emissions, yet norms about environmental responsibility and the moral urgency of climate action have become increasingly powerful. States feel pressure to act not just out of self-interest, but because failing to act is seen as morally and politically unacceptable. Constructivism helps us understand these dynamics by reminding us that international relations are not only driven by material forces, but also by ideas that define what is possible, permissible, and desirable.<\/p>\n<p>When it comes to understanding the structure of the international system itself, constructivists provide a unique interpretation of anarchy. While realists view anarchy as a permanent and unchangeable feature of the international system\u2014meaning there is no overarching authority to regulate state behavior\u2014constructivists see it differently. For constructivists, <strong><button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-87\">anarchy<\/button><\/strong> is not a fixed, objective condition but rather a social construct that is shaped by how states interact and the identities they hold. In other words, anarchy is what states make of it. If states view one another as threats, anarchy will lead to competition and conflict, as realism predicts. However, if states view one another as potential partners, anarchy can be transformed into a more cooperative, peaceful system. For example, the European Union (EU) has managed to create a highly integrated political and economic space where traditional notions of anarchy have been significantly reduced, as member states have built a collective identity rooted in cooperation rather than conflict.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Constructivism argues that state identities\u2014how states see themselves and others\u2014are key to understanding their behavior. These identities are not static; they evolve based on interactions with other states and the internal values of societies. For instance, after the end of apartheid, South Africa transformed its international identity from that of a pariah state to a leading advocate for human rights and peacekeeping in Africa. This shift in identity wasn\u2019t driven by material power but by changes in the country&#8217;s internal political and social values, and its interactions with the global community. Constructivists believe that, by understanding how identities are constructed and maintained, we can better predict how states will behave on the global stage. If the undead rose tomorrow, would constructivists ask how to stop them\u2014or stop to question what it even means to be \u201cundead\u201d in the first place?<\/p>\n<h3>Constructivism: Changing the World, One Zombie-Friendly Idea at a Time<\/h3>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">When it comes to zombies, it\u2019s not just about what they are\u2014it\u2019s about how we <em data-start=\"78\" data-end=\"85\">think<\/em> about them. Constructivism takes a different approach than realism and liberalism, focusing on how shared ideas, identities, and norms shape international responses. From a constructivist perspective, the international community\u2019s reaction to the zombies would depend heavily on how states construct the threat in their minds. Are the zombies seen as mindless enemies, or as a global health crisis that requires humanitarian responses? How states interpret the zombie threat\u2014through the lens of fear, cooperation, or moral obligation\u2014will shape their actions. In World War Z, we see how different governments react based on their identities and norms: Israel\u2019s defensive realism contrasts sharply with North Korea\u2019s more fatalistic approach, shaped by its social norms.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Constructivism would also focus on the role of ideational power. If a state or group of states manages to shape the narrative around the zombie apocalypse\u2014perhaps framing it as a challenge that requires global solidarity and innovation\u2014it could influence how others respond. The perception of zombies, as either an existential enemy or a solvable crisis, could drastically change the course of international action. Additionally, constructivists would argue that anarchy itself is not fixed; it can be reshaped by states\u2019 behaviors. If states collectively choose cooperation over competition, the anarchy of the international system can be transformed, even in a zombie apocalypse.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Constructivism, by focusing on the power of ideas, norms, and identities, offers a radically different way of understanding international relations compared to the more materialist theories of realism and liberalism. Where realism sees a world dominated by competition for power, and liberalism focuses on cooperation through institutions and trade, constructivism shows us that much of international politics is shaped by how states think about and interpret the world around them. While it may seem less concrete than other theories, constructivism reminds us that ideas matter\u2014that the ways we imagine the world can shape the realities of international politics. Next, we will explore Marxism, which takes a different approach by focusing on economic structures and the role of class struggle in shaping global power dynamics.<\/p>\n<p><!--nextpage --><\/p>\n<h2>2.6: Critical Theories &amp; Marxism<\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">While traditional theories like realism and liberalism focus on power, states, and institutions, <strong><button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-71\">critical theories<\/button><\/strong> in international relations push us to ask deeper questions: Who holds the power? Who is being exploited? Whose voices are being silenced? Critical theories challenge the mainstream perspectives of IR by emphasizing issues of inequality, oppression, and emancipation. They argue that global politics is not just about state security or economic cooperation, but also about addressing power structures that perpetuate social and economic injustices. These approaches offer fresh perspectives on how international relations are conducted and open the door to questioning the fairness of the global system.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">One of the most well-known critical theories in international relations is <strong><button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-72\">Marxism<\/button><\/strong>, which interprets global politics primarily through the lens of economic class struggle. Rather than viewing states as the central actors in world affairs, Marxism focuses on how economic classes\u2014especially capitalists and workers\u2014shape the international system. According to this perspective, the global political system is dominated by capitalist powers that exploit both the working class within their borders and the less-developed nations of the Global South. Wealthy countries maintain their dominance by extracting labor and resources from poorer regions and funneling profits back to the capitalist core. This process generates global inequality, where a small elite accumulates wealth at the expense of the many. For example, multinational corporations often extract valuable resources\u2014such as minerals, oil, or cash crops\u2014from developing countries at minimal cost, while leaving behind low wages, environmental harm, and few opportunities for economic advancement. Marxism thus offers a structural critique of global capitalism, arguing that exploitation is not a side effect but a core feature of the system.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_82\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-82\" style=\"width: 300px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-82\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Marxism-Theory-Picture-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"Skyscapers in the disance. Factories and small houses in the foreground.\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Marxism-Theory-Picture-300x300.jpg 300w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Marxism-Theory-Picture-150x150.jpg 150w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Marxism-Theory-Picture-768x768.jpg 768w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Marxism-Theory-Picture-65x65.jpg 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Marxism-Theory-Picture-225x225.jpg 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Marxism-Theory-Picture-350x350.jpg 350w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Marxism-Theory-Picture.jpg 1024w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-82\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">One of the most fundamental beliefs of Marxism is that world is divided into the &#8220;haves&#8221; (capitalists) and &#8220;have-nots&#8221; (proletariat). Image generated by OpenAI\u2019s DALL\u00b7E.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Building on Marxist foundations, <button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-73\"><strong>Dependency Theory<\/strong><\/button> applies these ideas directly to the structure of the global economy. Emerging primarily in the 1960s and 70s from scholars in Latin America and beyond, dependency theorists argue that the relationship between the Global North and the Global South is one of systematic exploitation and dependency. Rather than all states participating equally in a global market, the world economy is divided into a core (wealthy, industrialized countries) and a periphery (poorer, resource-exporting countries). Poorer nations are often locked into roles as suppliers of raw materials and low-cost labor, while wealthier nations dominate manufacturing, finance, and technology. Because the profits from global trade flow disproportionately to the core, the periphery remains underdeveloped and dependent, unable to build the industries or infrastructure needed to escape this cycle. According to dependency theorists, this is not just a historical legacy of colonialism\u2014it\u2019s an ongoing process embedded in the rules of international trade and finance.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Two of the most influential voices in this school of thought are Andre Gunder Frank and Immanuel Wallerstein, who helped formalize and globalize the theory of dependency. Frank argued that underdevelopment in the Global South was not the result of internal failures or lack of effort, but the direct outcome of historical and structural connections to the global capitalist system. In his view, development in the core actively produced underdevelopment in the periphery\u2014a condition he called the &#8220;development of underdevelopment.&#8221; Wallerstein expanded these ideas into a broader World-Systems Theory, which categorized countries into a core, periphery, and semi-periphery, emphasizing how the global capitalist system operates as a single, integrated unit. In this system, core countries maintain dominance not just economically, but politically and culturally, reinforcing their status through control over institutions like the IMF and World Bank. These frameworks show how, from a Marxist and dependency perspective, international relations are not a level playing field, but a deeply unequal structure that favors the few at the expense of the many. In a world already divided by wealth and power, would a zombie apocalypse level the playing field\u2014or just deepen the class divide, one barricade at a time?<\/p>\n<h3>Marxism: The Rich Get Bunkers, the Poor Get Zombies<\/h3>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\" data-start=\"0\" data-end=\"998\">If a zombie apocalypse ever breaks out, don\u2019t expect the rich to be running for their lives\u2014they\u2019ll be running for their private bunkers while the rest of us fight off the undead with canned beans and a baseball bat. Marxism views international relations primarily through the lens of economic class struggle, and in a zombie apocalypse, this theory would highlight how the capitalist system exacerbates inequality and exploitation. Marxists would argue that the wealthy elite would leverage their resources to shield themselves from the crisis, while the working class\u2014especially in poorer countries\u2014would suffer disproportionately. The rich might retreat to fortified bunkers, hire private security forces, or escape to exclusive, well-protected safe zones, leaving the working class to fend for themselves in overcrowded cities with little access to food, medicine, or weapons. In a capitalist system, survival itself could become a commodity, where only those with money have the means to escape the worst of the crisis. Governments and corporations would likely prioritize protecting economic elites, while the most vulnerable populations would be left to deal with the outbreak largely on their own.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\" data-start=\"0\" data-end=\"998\">A real-world parallel can be seen in how disasters like pandemics or economic crises disproportionately impact the poor. During the COVID-19 pandemic, wealthier individuals had the ability to work remotely, access private healthcare, and stockpile essential supplies, while lower-income workers\u2014often in frontline jobs\u2014were more exposed to the virus and had fewer resources to cope with economic hardships. Similarly, in <em data-start=\"1421\" data-end=\"1434\">World War Z<\/em>, wealthy and well-connected individuals escape to protected zones while lower-income populations, particularly in developing nations, are left exposed to the full force of the outbreak. Even in fictional zombie scenarios, the wealthy often use their resources to secure survival, while the working class is either abandoned or exploited\u2014forced into dangerous labor or even used as bait to slow down zombie hordes. From a Marxist perspective, a zombie apocalypse wouldn\u2019t just be about the undead\u2014it would be about how capitalism ensures that the rich get bunkers, and the poor get bitten.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\" data-start=\"0\" data-end=\"998\">Building on dependency theory, Marxists would also argue that poorer nations would be further exploited during the apocalypse. Wealthy nations might hoard vaccines or life-saving technologies, using their economic power to extract concessions from desperate states in the Global South. In World War Z, we see glimpses of this when nations with resources become safe havens while others fall into chaos. Marxism would focus on how the global capitalist system perpetuates inequality even in the face of existential threats, as the rich and powerful continue to dominate the international order, even when zombies are at the gates.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><!--nextpage --><\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\">2.7: Feminism<\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-74\">Feminism<\/button> <\/strong>in international relations\u00a0shifts the focus from economic class to gender, arguing that traditional international relations theories overlook the roles and experiences of women. Feminist theorists critique the ways in which global politics has been shaped by patriarchal structures, historically dominated by men. This perspective challenges the assumption that international politics is gender-neutral, pointing out how gender dynamics influence power relations, security, and conflict. For example, wars and peace processes are typically framed around male-dominated institutions like the military, often ignoring how women experience conflict differently\u2014whether through gender-based violence, forced displacement, or their roles in peacebuilding. Feminist IR theory insists that understanding international relations fully requires us to see how gender operates at every level of global politics.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_83\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-83\" style=\"width: 300px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-83\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Future-is-Feminist-300x188.jpg\" alt=\"Woman holding a sign that says &quot;The Future is Feminist&quot;\" width=\"300\" height=\"188\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Future-is-Feminist-300x188.jpg 300w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Future-is-Feminist-65x41.jpg 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Future-is-Feminist-225x141.jpg 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Future-is-Feminist-350x219.jpg 350w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Future-is-Feminist.jpg 640w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-83\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">From an IR perspective, feminism argues that gender plays a role in shaping global outcomes.\u00a0 <a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:%22The_Future_is_Feminist%22_(31691386593).jpg#\/media\/File:%22The_Future_is_Feminist%22_(31691386593).jpg\">Future is Feminist<\/a> <a class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/people\/109088203@N04\" rel=\"nofollow\">James McNellis<\/a> <a class=\"mw-mmv-license\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/2.0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CC BY 2.0<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A key concept in feminist IR is <strong><button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-75\">patriarchy<\/button><\/strong>, which refers to the historical dominance of men in shaping political, economic, and social institutions. Feminist scholars argue that the global political system is heavily influenced by male-dominated institutions like governments, militaries, and corporations. This male-centric framework influences how states behave and how power is distributed. For example, the fact that national security is often defined in terms of military power, rather than human well-being or social welfare, reflects patriarchal assumptions that prioritize traditionally &#8220;male&#8221; concerns\u2014like state sovereignty and territorial control\u2014over issues that might be seen as &#8220;feminine,&#8221; like education, healthcare, or environmental sustainability. Feminist theory challenges these assumptions and calls for a rethinking of what we consider important in international relations.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This leads to the concept of <button class=\"glossary-term\" aria-describedby=\"47-76\"><strong>gendered security<\/strong><\/button>, a central idea in feminist international relations theory that critiques the traditional, state-centric definition of security. Conventional IR approaches often define security in terms of military threats and the protection of national borders. In this framework, the primary concern is preventing war or external aggression against the state. Feminist scholars challenge this narrow definition, arguing that it ignores the everyday, lived experiences of individuals\u2014especially women and marginalized communities\u2014who may face constant insecurity even in so-called \u201cpeaceful\u201d societies. Security, they contend, should not be limited to the absence of war, but should also include protection from structural violence like poverty, inequality, and discrimination. Scholars such as Cynthia Enloe have been instrumental in asking, \u201cWhere are the women?\u201d in global politics\u2014pointing out how traditional IR often renders them invisible.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Feminist theorists argue that global issues such as poverty, environmental degradation, and armed conflict disproportionately affect women and are often overlooked in mainstream security discussions. In many conflict zones, for example, women face heightened risks of sexual and gender-based violence, forced displacement, and loss of access to healthcare or education. Despite playing essential roles in sustaining communities and rebuilding societies after conflict, women are often excluded from peace negotiations and decision-making processes. Gendered security responds to these realities by expanding the concept of security to focus on the well-being and safety of individuals, not just the survival of states. Feminist scholar Laura Sjoberg, in works like Gender, War, and Conflict (2014), emphasizes how ignoring gender in conflict studies leads to incomplete and biased understandings of both violence and peace. Her work illustrates how the intersection of gender and war reshapes who is seen as vulnerable, who is protected, and whose security &#8220;counts.&#8221; Feminist IR theory, in this way, reframes what it means to be \u201csecure\u201d in the international system\u2014not as a condition enjoyed only by powerful states, but as a universal right that must be accessible to all people, regardless of gender.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Both Marxist and feminist theories fall under the broader umbrella of critical theory, which challenges us to question the status quo and consider how power is distributed globally. These approaches emphasize that international relations are not neutral or objective; they are shaped by power imbalances that perpetuate inequality, whether through economic exploitation or gendered oppression. While traditional theories like realism and liberalism might focus on states and institutions, critical theories push us to look at the underlying structures that keep certain groups\u2014whether they are economic classes, women, or entire nations\u2014in positions of disadvantage. This call for emancipation and social justice lies at the heart of critical approaches to international relations, offering a powerful critique of how global politics operates. And if global politics already leaves some groups fighting for scraps, what happens when the scraps are brains\u2014and the patriarchy still gets first dibs?<\/p>\n<h3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">Feminism: Who Runs the World? Girls\u2026 and Also Zombies<\/h3>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\" data-start=\"0\" data-end=\"1105\">When the zombie apocalypse hits, don\u2019t be surprised if the survival plans are drafted by generals and politicians who forget that someone still needs to change diapers, find food, and keep communities functioning. Feminist IR theory would offer a critical view of how gender dynamics shape the response to a zombie apocalypse, arguing that global strategies for dealing with the crisis would be heavily influenced by patriarchal structures. Decision-making would likely be dominated by male-led institutions like the military and governments, prioritizing militarized solutions while sidelining the needs and experiences of women. Feminist theorists would critique this approach, highlighting how traditional security measures\u2014such as border fortifications and military interventions\u2014often ignore the everyday struggles faced by women and marginalized communities during crises. In a zombie outbreak, survival wouldn\u2019t just depend on guns and walls; it would also require addressing food security, healthcare, and social stability\u2014areas where women often play critical but undervalued roles.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\" data-start=\"1107\" data-end=\"2626\" data-is-last-node=\"\">In World<em data-start=\"1751\" data-end=\"1764\"> War Z<\/em>, much of the response is centered around military solutions and state-led efforts, with little attention paid to how women experience the crisis differently. Feminist theorists would argue that these narratives overlook key aspects of survival, such as the burden of caregiving, the increased risk of gender-based violence in chaotic conditions, and the lack of representation of women in leadership roles making critical policy decisions. In many zombie films and shows, women are often depicted as secondary characters, caregivers, or victims rather than as central decision-makers. Feminist IR theory challenges these traditional portrayals, arguing that addressing a global crisis\u2014whether a real pandemic or a fictional zombie apocalypse\u2014requires recognizing and addressing the unique challenges faced by women, rather than treating them as an afterthought.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Feminist IR also introduces the concept of gendered security, emphasizing that traditional approaches to security\u2014focused on state borders and military defense\u2014often neglect the human security needs of marginalized groups, especially women. For example, as food supplies dwindle, women in many societies are the ones primarily responsible for providing for their families, putting them at greater risk in dangerous, zombie-infested environments. Feminists would push for a more inclusive approach to security, one that considers the safety and well-being of all people, not just the protection of the state.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><!--nextpage --><\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\">Conclusion: What We Can Learn from a Zombie Apocalypse<\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">By imagining how different international relations theories would respond to a zombie apocalypse, using World War Z as our guide, you\u2019ve seen how each theory interprets state behavior, power structures, and global interactions under extreme pressure. Realism zeroes in on power and survival, focusing on competition and security. Liberalism highlights the potential for cooperation through institutions and shared interests. Constructivism emphasizes how ideas, norms, and identities shape the way states react to crises. Marxism uncovers how economic inequalities persist even in apocalyptic situations, and feminism challenges us to see how global events disproportionately affect women, often overlooked in mainstream responses.<\/p>\n<div style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\n<p class=\"indent\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">Together, these theories offer a powerful toolkit for understanding how the world might react to major crises\u2014whether facing zombies or real-world global challenges. By using World War Z as a lens, you\u2019ve learned to compare and contrast the fundamental principles of realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism, and feminism, and to apply these frameworks to analyze global political dynamics. Now that you\u2019ve seen how different theories hold up in a zombie apocalypse, let loose! You\u2019re now better equipped to understand how they shape our world\u2014even when the threats aren\u2019t undead!<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_85\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-85\" style=\"width: 300px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-85\" src=\"http:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Zombies-dancing-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"Zombies dancing in formal clothing.\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Zombies-dancing-300x300.jpg 300w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Zombies-dancing-150x150.jpg 150w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Zombies-dancing-768x768.jpg 768w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Zombies-dancing-65x65.jpg 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Zombies-dancing-225x225.jpg 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Zombies-dancing-350x350.jpg 350w, https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/95\/2024\/10\/Zombies-dancing.jpg 1024w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-85\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Let loose! It&#8217;s just a zombie apocalypse. Image generated by OpenAI\u2019s DALL\u00b7E.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p class=\"indent\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><!--nextpage --><\/p>\n<h2 class=\"indent\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Key Terms<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Anarchy (Constructivist View)<\/strong> \u2013 Unlike realism, constructivists view anarchy as a socially constructed concept that can be transformed by changing state identities and interactions.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Balance of Power<\/strong> \u2013 A concept where power is distributed among multiple states to prevent any single state from dominating the international system.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Collective Security<\/strong> \u2013 A system where states agree to jointly respond to threats or aggression against any one member, as seen in alliances like NATO.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Constructivism<\/strong> \u2013 A theory that emphasizes the role of ideas, norms, and identities in shaping state behavior and the international system.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Critical Theory<\/strong> \u2013 A broad approach in IR that critiques traditional theories like realism and liberalism, emphasizing issues of inequality, power structures, and emancipation.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Democratic Peace Theory<\/strong> \u2013 The idea that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other due to shared norms, values, and institutional constraints.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Dependency Theory<\/strong> \u2013 A Marxist theory that suggests wealthy nations exploit poorer ones, creating a global economic system of dependency that hinders development in less industrialized countries.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Feminism<\/strong>\u2013 A theory that focuses on how international relations affect women and how gender dynamics influence global politics, security, and power relations.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Gendered Security<\/strong> \u2013 The notion that traditional definitions of security focus on state-level threats and often overlook how global issues like war, poverty, and environmental degradation disproportionately affect women.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Hard Power<\/strong> \u2013\u00a0The use of military force, economic sanctions, or coercion to influence the behavior of other states.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Ideational Power<\/strong>&#8211; The ability to shape global outcomes by influencing beliefs, values, and perceptions rather than relying on material strength.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Institutional Norms<\/strong> \u2013 Shared expectations about appropriate behavior among states, which can influence international relations (e.g., norms against the use of nuclear weapons).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Institutions<\/strong>&#8211;\u00a0Rules and organizations that structure state behavior and facilitate cooperation in international relations.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Interdependence<\/strong> \u2013 A condition where states are economically reliant on each other, reducing the likelihood of conflict because war would disrupt mutually beneficial trade.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Liberalism<\/strong> \u2013 An IR theory that emphasizes cooperation, international institutions, and interdependence among states as ways to mitigate conflict.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Marxism<\/strong> \u2013 A theory that views international relations primarily through the lens of economic class struggles, focusing on the exploitation of the working class by capitalist powers.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Patriarchy<\/strong> \u2013 The idea that politics is shaped by historically male-dominated institutions and that this influences state behavior and power dynamics.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Positive Sum<\/strong>&#8211; A situation where all parties can benefit, creating mutual gains rather than competition or conflict.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Realism<\/strong> \u2013 An IR theory emphasizing the competitive and conflictual side of international relations, focusing on power, national interest, and state survival in an anarchic system.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Security Dilemma<\/strong> \u2013 A situation where one state&#8217;s actions to increase its security lead to other states feeling less secure, potentially causing an arms race.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Social Construction<\/strong>&#8211; International structures and relationships are shaped by shared ideas, norms, and identities rather than material forces.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Soft Power<\/strong>&#8211; The ability to influence others through attraction and persuasion, such as cultural influence or diplomacy, rather than force.<\/p>\n<div style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\n<p class=\"indent\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Zero Sum<\/strong>&#8211;\u00a0 When one state&#8217;s gain directly results in another state&#8217;s loss, with no net benefit for both parties.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<div class=\"group\/conversation-turn relative flex w-full min-w-0 flex-col agent-turn\">\n<div class=\"flex-col gap-1 md:gap-3\">\n<div class=\"flex max-w-full flex-col flex-grow\">\n<div class=\"min-h-8 text-message flex w-full flex-col items-end gap-2 whitespace-normal break-words [.text-message+&amp;]:mt-5\" dir=\"auto\" data-message-author-role=\"assistant\" data-message-id=\"5555fc12-a2a4-4540-bc00-a0effb0de35c\" data-message-model-slug=\"gpt-4o\">\n<div class=\"flex w-full flex-col gap-1 empty:hidden first:pt-[3px]\">\n<div class=\"markdown prose w-full break-words dark:prose-invert light\">\n<h3 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Licenses and Attribution<\/strong><\/h3>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\">CC Licensed Content, Original<\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span data-teams=\"true\">This educational material includes AI-generated content from ChatGPT by OpenAI. The original content created by Eric Fiske and Deborah Barr from Hillsborough Community College is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (<a id=\"menur5so\" class=\"fui-Link ___1q1shib f2hkw1w f3rmtva f1ewtqcl fyind8e f1k6fduh f1w7gpdv fk6fouc fjoy568 figsok6 f1s184ao f1mk8lai fnbmjn9 f1o700av f13mvf36 f1cmlufx f9n3di6 f1ids18y f1tx3yz7 f1deo86v f1eh06m1 f1iescvh fhgqx19 f1olyrje f1p93eir f1nev41a f1h8hb77 f1lqvz6u f10aw75t fsle3fq f17ae5zn\" title=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc\/4.0\/deed.en\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc\/4.0\/deed.en\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"Link CC BY-NC 4.0\">CC BY-NC 4.0<\/a>).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<div class=\"flex-shrink-0 flex flex-col relative items-end\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<div>\n<div class=\"pt-0\">\n<div class=\"gizmo-bot-avatar flex h-8 w-8 items-center justify-center overflow-hidden rounded-full\">\n<div class=\"relative p-1 rounded-sm flex items-center justify-center bg-token-main-surface-primary text-token-text-primary h-8 w-8\">All images in this textbook generated with DALL-E are licensed under the terms provided by OpenAI, allowing for their free use, modification, and distribution with appropriate attribution.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<hr \/>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>CC Licensed Content Included<\/strong><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Future is Feminist<\/strong><br \/>\nImage by James McNellis<br \/>\nLicense: CC BY 2.0<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Global cooperation<\/strong><br \/>\nSource: Trump White House Archive<br \/>\nPublic domain.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\">Other Licensed Content Included<\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>World war Z | action scene| evacuate| 1\/10<\/strong><br \/>\nVideo by Jaja.<br \/>\nLicense: Standard YouTube License.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>World war Z | action scene| The beginning| 1\/10<\/strong><br \/>\nVideo by Jaja.<br \/>\nLicense: Standard YouTube License.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"glossary\"><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-1195\" hidden><p>A structured explanation or model that helps us make sense of complex phenomena by identifying patterns, causes, and relationships<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-54\" hidden><p>An IR theory emphasizing the competitive and conflictual side of international relations, focusing on power, national interest, and state survival in an anarchic system. <\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-97\" hidden><p>Assumption that a state behaves as a single, cohesive entity in international relations, making decisions based on national interest without internal divisions or competing interests.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-207\" hidden><p>The use of military force or economic sanctions by a state to coerce others, reflecting direct means of influence.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-57\" hidden><p>A situation where one state's actions to increase its security lead to other states feeling less secure, potentially causing an arms race.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-58\" hidden><p>When one state's gain directly results in another state's loss, with no net benefit for both parties.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-59\" hidden><p>A concept where power is distributed among multiple states to prevent any single state from dominating the international system.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-60\" hidden><p>An IR theory that emphasizes cooperation, international institutions, and interdependence among states as ways to mitigate conflict.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-61\" hidden><p>The ability to influence others through attraction and persuasion, such as cultural influence or diplomacy, rather than force.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-62\" hidden><p>Rules and organizations that structure state behavior and facilitate cooperation in international relations.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-63\" hidden><p>A situation where all parties can benefit, creating mutual gains rather than competition or conflict.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-64\" hidden><p>A condition where states are economically reliant on each other, reducing the likelihood of conflict because war would disrupt mutually beneficial trade.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-65\" hidden><p>A system where states agree to jointly respond to threats or aggression against any one member, as seen in alliances like NATO.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-66\" hidden><p>The idea that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other due to shared norms, values, and institutional constraints.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-67\" hidden><p>A theory that emphasizes the role of ideas, norms, and identities in shaping state behavior and the international system.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-68\" hidden><p>International structures and relationships are shaped by shared ideas, norms, and identities rather than material forces.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-69\" hidden><p>Shared expectations about appropriate behavior among states, which can influence international relations (e.g., norms against the use of nuclear weapons).<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-70\" hidden><p>The ability to shape global outcomes by influencing beliefs, values, and perceptions rather than relying on material strength.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-87\" hidden><p>Unlike realism, constructivists view anarchy as a socially constructed concept that can be transformed by changing state identities and interactions.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-71\" hidden><p>A broad approach in IR that critiques traditional theories like realism and liberalism, emphasizing issues of inequality, power structures, and emancipation.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-72\" hidden><p>A theory that views international relations primarily through the lens of economic class struggles, focusing on the exploitation of the working class by capitalist powers.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-73\" hidden><p>A Marxist theory that suggests wealthy nations exploit poorer ones, creating a global economic system of dependency that hinders development in less industrialized countries.<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-74\" hidden><p>A theory that focuses on how international relations affect women and how gender dynamics influence global politics, security, and power relations. <\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-75\" hidden><p>The idea that politics is shaped by historically male-dominated institutions and that this influences state behavior and power dynamics. <\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"glossary__tooltip\" id=\"47-76\" hidden><p>The notion that traditional definitions of security focus on state-level threats and often overlook how global issues like war, poverty, and environmental degradation disproportionately affect women. <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"author":122,"menu_order":3,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"Chapter 2: Theories of International Relations & Zombies ","pb_subtitle":"Realism, Liberalism, and the Zombie Survival Guide","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-47","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":24,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/47","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/122"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47"}],"version-history":[{"count":100,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/47\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1391,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/47\/revisions\/1391"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/24"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/47\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=47"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=47"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/internationalrelations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=47"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}