Theoretical Perspective
The Problem of “National Interests”
The concept of “national interests” is commonly used in international relations theory, especially realism, to explain and predict state behavior. However, realist theory in particular does not adequately address the question of where exactly national interests come from and whose interests they represent.
Nation-states are comprised of many diverse groups with divergent economic, political, and social interests - including business groups, workers, peasants, urban professionals, ethnic groups, etc. It is problematic to assume that states inherently represent the “national interest” when states are abstract entities not the same thing as the population itself. We cannot take for granted that a state’s actions and policies represent the interests of all citizens equally.
There is a need to critically examine how states are constituted, how state power operates, and which social groups or classes dominate the state apparatus and decision-making. Whose interests are being represented when we talk about the “national interest”? Is it the urban business elites, the military, certain ethnic groups, or a broader cross-section of the population? These questions are often overlooked within dominant IR theories. A more complex analysis of domestic societal actors and their access to state power is required, rather than treating states as unitary rational actors.
Nation-States Have Diverse Interest Groups
Nation-states are complex entities comprising diverse groups with often divergent interests. For example, within a country we may find business groups, workers, peasants, urban middle-classes, different ethnic and religious groups, and more. Each of these groups likely has distinct economic, political, and social interests that may not align. A business association seeks policies that maximize profits, while an agricultural workers union fights for improved wages and working conditions. An ethnic minority pushes for greater political representation, as urban youth demand opportunities for social mobility.
With so many competing interests, it becomes difficult to define the “national interest” in a clear and unambiguous way. Whose interests matter most? Does the national interest equate to whatever the current government prioritizes? Or should it represent some aggregated balance between all major groups? However conceived, national interests reflect a simplification. We cannot presume all citizens share uniform interests. A disaggregated analysis highlights the diversity of interests within any nation-state.
Problematic to See States as Persons
Nation-states are often comprised of diverse and sometimes conflicting groups with different interests based on economic position, ethnicity, religion, geography, and more. However, in international relations theory, states are sometimes treated as individual, unified actors with singular “national interests” - also referred to as anthropomorphizing states. This tendency oversimplifies the complex makeup of modern nation-states and assumes a unity of preferences and goals within states that rarely actually exists.
In reality, the formulation of a state’s foreign policy and its behavior on the international stage emerges out of a complex interplay of competing interests domestically. There is often no clear consensus on what constitutes the “national interest” within a heterogeneous society. Therefore, treating states as persons with coherent intentions risks missing critical nuances in state behavior and decision-making. It is important to dig deeper into how domestic political dynamics, group contention, and the relative influence of different factions shapes the priorities and actions of nation-states. Blanket assumptions about unified national interests cover over these complexities and limit richer explanations of world politics.
Need to Ask About State Constituency
A key issue is that nation-states are often comprised of diverse and sometimes conflicting interest groups and constituencies. For example, a state may contain business groups, workers, peasants, the urban middle-class, ethnic groups, and religious groups, all with divergent interests and priorities. It is problematic to assume that such a heterogeneous entity has singular “national interests.”
Therefore, it is important to analyze how modern nation-states are constituted and whose interests they ultimately represent in practice through their domestic and foreign policies. Rather than taking state interests as a given, we should ask critical questions about which social groups and classes hold power within the state apparatus, and which segments of society possess the greatest ability to shape state decision-making to reflect their interests. Without this type of deeper analysis, assumptions of unitary state interests risk obscuring the underlying tensions, power dynamics, and competing interests within all societies.
No Single Theory Sufficient
No single theoretical perspective can sufficiently explain the complex issues witnessed in world politics today. The international landscape involves intricate historical processes, diverse actors, and multifaceted power dynamics that often transcend the assumptions and focus of any one theory. For example, realism may provide insights into military rivalries between great powers, but falls short in accounting for transnational activism or the power of norms. Constructivism helps reveal the constitutive role of social identities and norms, but does not offer much on the distribution of material capabilities.
Rather than rigidly applying a single lens, an eclectic and pragmatic approach allows scholars to select from relevant theoretical concepts and logics to provide a more nuanced analysis. Known as analytical eclecticism, this strategy uses concrete real world problems as its starting point, and then draws judiciously on available theories based on their explanatory merit for the specific issue at hand. The objective is not to create an overarching meta-theory, but rather to be able to better reveal the complexities and nuances within particular research problems which may be obscured by inherent assumptions within any given theory. Analytical eclecticism aims to avoid theoretical blind spots and provide deeper understanding of multifaceted issues in world politics.
Starting from Concrete Problems
Analytical eclecticism advocates starting analysis from concrete real world problems, rather than beginning with a grand theory or meta-theoretical assumptions. This allows scholars to make pragmatic choices regarding which available theoretical perspectives may be most suitable for providing insight into the specific complexities and nuances of the issue being examined.
The objective is not to create an overarching theoretical framework that seeks to explain everything. Rather, analytical eclecticism aims to provide nuanced explanations for a range of particular empirical issues and cases by selecting and integrating elements of different theories based on their utility for the specific problem at hand. This helps reveal aspects of problems that may be obscured by the inherent assumptions or blind spots within any single theory.
Overall, the focus on using concrete real world problems as the starting point for analysis allows scholars flexibility to eclectically draw upon multiple perspectives in order to provide more comprehensive explanations that do justice to the complexities of world politics. The pragmatic use of theories is driven by their ability to provide unique insights into the issue, not by ideological commitments to the theories themselves.
Revealing Blind Spots
Analytical eclecticism allows scholars to overcome the inherent blind spots within individual theories. By using multiple perspectives and focusing on concrete issues, analysts can reveal complexities and nuances that may be obscured by the assumptions of a single theory. For example, realism’s state-centric approach can miss the significance of domestic social forces, while liberalism’s focus on cooperation may underestimate power politics. Eclecticism enables a more comprehensive understanding by leveraging the strengths of different theories and mitigating their weaknesses. The goal is not theoretical purity but pragmatic elucidation of multifaceted real-world problems. Shedding light on blind spots allows for deeper insight.