Figure 1. A graphical summary of the introductory premise.
For this post, I’m going to spin the gear in the opposite
direction. Instead of providing a neutral post with two sides, I will present
my opinion on the levels of analysis in international relations, which can be
defined as the systematic assortment of complexity of international matters.
To be brief, there are three layers: individual (I), domestic (D),
and systemic (S). The individual layer considers events occurring in relation to
the individuals within nation. The domestic component relates to the internal issues within the nation. Finally, the systemic level itself considers the
internationality and the relations of countries with each other.
There are a good number of theorists who are systemic-centric,
meaning that they analyze international affairs with little or no focus on the
individual and domestic levels, placing their attention solely on the systemic
layer. They assert that the systemic layer, as opposed to the other two
categories, is constant and changes to very minor extents.
I greatly disagree with this approach. I do not have a problem
with how the systemic layer is being approached, but rather, how it is being
treated in relation to the other two levels. I hypothesize that the prioritized
treatment of the systemic level greatly broadens the critical analysis at hand
and disregards much potential detail.
Primarily, I must ask, can there be two or more simultaneously
occurring levels of analysis? I speculate that indeed, there can – there is no
question to it. If a nation performs an action that affects the
internationality, it will not wait until the effects on the global community
will subside. Rather, it will continue functioning and carrying out actions within its own domestic sphere.
On the basis of this, I declare a relation between the three
theoretical levels of political analysis.
Primarily, an individual may transmit their power through the
domestic level to perform functions that affect the domestic level.
This can be
shown as I → D.
It should be noted that they cannot directly transmit power to the
systemic level. It is postulated that this is a task too great to handle, so an
individual must act through a force bigger than they but large enough to be
subject to influence and control.
This demonstrates
the impossibility of I → S.
Therefore, the individual must transmit their power through the
domestic level to achieve influence on the systemic level.
This can be
modeled as D → S.
As a whole, it can be said that I → D → S.
It is thus evident that the individual and domestic levels form
part of the scope when conducting political analysis.
Posts
