A Criticism of Systemic-centric Theorism: Part 1 – Introduction

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.