Afin d’expliquer comment la mondialisation reconstruit les politiques publiques et les comportements sociaux nous étudions les échanges et interactions entre les acteurs politiques, économiques et sociaux -publics et privés, individuels et collectifs- et la façon dont ils redessinent les relations internationales. Ce cours prend sa source dans les approches sociologique et historique françaises des relations internationales. This course is also available in english version: www.coursera.org/learn/global-studies
Une approche française du mondial ?
Loading...
来自 Sciences Po 的课程
Espace mondial, une vision française des global studies
个评分
从本节课中
Introduction
Notre monde globalisé nécessite une nouvelle approche de l’international, en rupture avec les théories classiques.
与讲师见面
Bertrand BadieProfessor
Marie-Françoise DurandProfessor
In my previous lecture I insisted
on the French touch in approaching
<i>Espace mondial</i>
in approaching global studies and globalization.
Of course, there is no French exception
but there is a French specificity,
and this French specificity is
probably the background of all this MOOC.
So my point will be here to explain
what is this French approach
to international relations,
the French vision of international politics
and of globalization.
Of course, France contributed
in inventing the westphalian world.
France was one of the main actors
of the Westphalian Peace,
one of the main authors
of the Westphalian Treaties.
And that’s to say that the world order
which is generated by the Westphalian Peace
was produced by France
and by French actors,
and especially
by the French king Louis the XIV.
If France was participating
in the invention of this new order,
its evolution
is rather different from other countries.
Let’s consider for a moment
the westphalian model.
And consider one of the main thinkers
of this westphalian order,
the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes.
The French vision of international relations
was strongly affected
by this Hobbesian vision of the world.
You know, you remember,
that the author of Leviathan
considered that in a world of insecurity
the state, the sovereign, the Leviathan
is providing security in return for
a part of individual liberties
which are abandoned by individuals, by citizens
for being protected by the state.
But for this reason, the state must be sovereign,
and if the state is sovereign, that means
that he is not committed to any rules,
which will be enforced against its own willingness.
That’s to say, that in the classic vision
of international relations,
states are sovereign and
in the international arena is made
of a competition among sovereign actors,
like gladiators.
And the formula is given by Hobbes
who considered that we can compare states
with gladiators in the international arena.
But if the state has to be sovereign
for being efficient,
the state must first of all use power,
and that’s why international relations
are made of power politics.
Power politics is covering
the international system,
the international relations among actors.
Using power means using war,
in this competition among states.
War is considered by Hobbes
as the main background of international relations,
the normal relation among states,
and that’s’ why peace is only considered
as a very provisional moment between two wars
and not only war is something normal,
trivial among states but war is considered
as an important factor of state making.
And that’s why the famous American
sociologist and historian Charles Tilly
pointed these relations between
war making and state making.
War making, state making, power politics
are the main parameters
of this westphalian order
which is made of the juxtaposition
of sovereign states, of sovereign territorial units.
And this vision is quite different from
another vision which was promoted
during the same century by 25 years before
by the famous Dutch lawyer Grotius.
And Grotius had a different vision
of international relations
in which war is no more central.
For Grotius, and remember that Grotius
was one of the main advisors
of the Dutch East India company,
peace is necessary
for promoting trade.
And so, if we want to have a peaceful world
we have first of all to be committed
to an international law.
And this international law is legitimate
because it’s a natural law
given by god to people.
But Grotius was not the winner.
Hobbes was the real winner
of the competition.
And that’s why we kept this
westphalian world during several centuries.
The Grotius vision came back
at the end of the First World War
with Woodrow Wilson.
And Woodrow Wilson tried to reinvest
the Grotius vision of international relations
for giving priority to international law
and international institutions.
But Hobbes never left the arena.
That is power politics.
Now, the French vision
of international relations
was strongly amended.
And the French vision of international relations
got critical against
this traditional vision of power politics
in international relations.
For several reasons.
For political reasons and for intellectual reasons.
Political reasons: these political reasons
are connected to the French political experience.
And we have to take into account the fact that
France experienced defeat
three times in one century.
In 1871 when France was defeated by Germany.
In 1940 when France was defeated
for a second time by Germany.
And the third defeat is during the colonial wars
in Dien Bien Phu in 1954
when France was defeated
by a small army made of the
Vietnam resistance against colonization.
And in 1960-1962 when France was defeated
at the political level by Algerians,
and Algeria got its independence
after so many years of resistance.
And this triple defeat
which really triggered the trauma
in the French collective vision
of its own history and its own future.
This trauma led to a new vision
of international relations
in which power politics was no more central.
There is no more
this strong trust in power politics
that we can find for instance
in the American history
as US was not defeated
as France was during its history.
The second point, the second political experience
is coming from colonization.
That’s to say through colonization,
France got in touch with new people, new cultures.
And so, it took place a new approach
to international relations,
which was much more anthropological
and less political taking
into account a diversity of cultures.
And that’s why our approach
to international relations
is made of anthropology, sociology, history.
And the third difference is Gaullism.
That’s to say General De Gaulle was convinced
that France was no more powerful.
But has to move to what he called <i>Grandeur</i>.
If we are no more powerful,
we have to promote our <i>Grandeur</i>, our Greatness.
That’s to say another vision
of international relations
in which influence, culture, soft power
are much more important than hard power.
Now we have also to consider intellectual factors.
There is not a real school of political sciences
of international relations in France.
The political vision of international relations
was not really promoted among our academic people.
But, there is a very long and old tradition
of history of international relations.
That’s why we will stress
on the historical dimension of the global world.
An important school also of international law.
International law was partly created in France
through many famous layers like Georges Scelle
who tried to promote another vision
of the international societies
and international arena made, as he said,
of a co-penetration of different societies.
This law dimension
has to be considered in this lecture
and we will try to show
how the new international norms
are shaping and transforming
our international arena.
But, overall, the French vision
of international relations is made of sociology
coming from our great French sociologist
at the end of the 19th century,
Emile Durkheim played a very important role
in promoting the concept of solidarity.
Contrary to Max Weber,
Durkheim didn’t take into account power.
Power was not the central concept of his own theory,
but the main point of Durkheim
was to say that without solidarity
there is a risk of collapsing.
Societies will collapsed without
a minimal degree of social integration.
Social integration and solidarity
are the two founding concepts
of the Durkheimian sociology.
And so, many people and especially
some students of Durkheim
like the French politicians Leon Bourgeois
or Aristide Briand who were inspired by
and influenced by Durkheim stressed
that in the world we have to pay attention
to a minimal international integration.
Without a minimal integration,
without a minimal social integration of the world
there is the same risk of collapse.
And the main point of this lecture
will be to point
that the present international system is fragile
because it’s not integrated enough.
And if there is this lack of integration
there is a risk of conflict.
The present conflicts
are no more made of competition among states
but are made of this lack
of international social integration.
This lack of intersocial integration
is defined by some indexes like
the Human Development Index.
That’s to say for example lack of education,
or food insecurity or health insecurity an so on.
But we can also find some symbolic factors.
That’s to say for instance the lack of respect
and humiliation which is playing
such an important role in the transformation
and in the conflictualisation
of international relations.
This is this sociological vision
we have to promote
of the present international order.
