关于本课程 为了解释全球化是如何重构公共政策和再塑社会行为，我们将研究不同的政治、经济行为体、研究各类——公共或私人，个体或集体——社会行为体，并着眼关注到它们之间的交流和互动作用，这些行为体正在重构着国际关系。 本课程以法国社会学和历史学视角来研究国际关系。同时也提供英语版本(www.coursera.org/learn/global-studies/)、法语版本(www.coursera.org/learn/espace-mondial-fr/)和阿拉伯语版本(www.coursera.org/learn/espace-mondial-ar/)。
西方起源
Loading...
來自 Sciences Po 的課程
世界空间、法国视角下的国际研究
6 個評分
Explore Related Videos
At Coursera, you will find the best lectures in the world. Here are some of our personalized recommendations for you
與講師見面
Bertrand BadieProfessor
Marie-Françoise DurandProfessor
[MUSIC]
Now, let's move to more classical aspects of the world
of our present espace mondial.
Let's take into account state, power, war, peace,
international systems, international organizations and so on.
Of course, in a classical, in a traditional vision of the world,
the concept of the state appears as a neutral cornerstone.
The state was consecrated as the main unit and
even as an exclusive unit of international relations,
that's to say of interstate relations.
This seems to be obvious.
But in fact, it's much more complex.
Let's try to make an order in this very high complexity.
First of all, state is not a concept easy to define.
We are inclined to consider state as a political system and
no more, but state must be considered as a very special
political system with a very precise definition and
it would be about middle to consider state as a general political
order which can be applied to all the histories,
all the culture, all the societies.
We must build the concept of state as an historical concept.
If we don't do that, we take the risk, we take a double risk.
The risk, first to not really understand
the specificity of articulation,
politics and society in all the histories.
The politics and society are not bound in the same way,
are not related to each other in the same way.
And the second risk, if we have a too much general vision
of the state is to consider that state as we know it as it was built.
European and Western history, it can be exported very well
around the world and we know now that this was a failure.
State, if you consider it as an historical fact,
appeared in the crisis of Europe and Middle Age.
It was invented during the 13th and the 14th century
in order to contain the fragmentation of the political,
and social, and economical order inside the feudal society.
State has to be considered as a political solution to a crisis,
a very strong crisis which took place at the end of the feudal era.
That's to say, state is constituted by
some characteristics that are setting up
the definition we currently give to it.
States will be considered as a particle system, but a special particle system.
That's to say, the centralized political system,
the differentiated political system, an institutionalized political system,
a sovereign political system and a territorial political system.
Center, differentiation, institution, sovereignty and
territory are the five components of the nation state model.
Center, all the political systems are not centralized.
If you take into account the tribal system,
the tribal system is not centralized.
If you take into account the feudal society, the society was not centralized.
That is to say that there is no necessary link between center and politics.
State is a way of centralization, which took place when
the decentralization of the feudal order went to collapse.
Differentiation, this is another main characteristic
of the Western state, of the historical Western state.
That is to say, separation between private and
public, between civil society and state.
This differentiation cannot be found in other
kinds of political system, neither in empire, nor
in traditional monarchy or traditional political
order as we find it in the traditional societies.
Institution.
Institution, that's to say, a separation between the norm and
those who are implementing the norms.
That's to say, state must be considered as
an institutional political system.
It's quite different from, for instance, patrimonial monarchy and
patrimonial order as it was conceived in the tradition.
Sovereignty, that's to say, the state is sovereign.
No other power behind the state power.
This sovereignty which is as you know, the cornerstone of
the observation of the politics is founding the state.
And we have in mind the great question, what about globalization in which
total sovereign is not possible is state able
to survive in this globalized order?
And finally, territory.
That is to say and
it appears very clearly in the definition of the state given by Varbal.
State implies a territorial order with very precise border lines and
this is also quite different from other kinds
of political systems like, for instance, empire.
In an empire, there is no clear borderlines,
but there are these periphery which
cannot be reduced to classical
territory drawn by their borderline.
If we admit this definition, we can clearly find
the relationship between state building and
overcoming the futile order.
Solving the partial crisis emerging from the medieval social disorder and
that's why I will insist on the very important point.
The more futile society was fragmented,
the more centralization while strong as a solution
to the deadlock of this fragmentation.
That's to say nowadays,
those societies which were strongly and
deeply polarized are now effected by
a strong tradition of a strong state.
That's why, for instance, France was considered and
is still considered as the motherland of state where state is developed,
where there is a strong culture of the state.
A strong separation between public and private, and
this culture of the state which was at the very center of the French
culture is explained by the deep crisis of a very fragmented
social order which took place in France at the end of the Middle Age.
Now if we consider other kinds of societies,
of European societies like, for instance, England.
England was not strongly feel the lies and
that's why the state was never very strong, and
the civil society plays a more important role than the classical state order.
And now if we move to US which didn't
meet the history of duality,
we can find for this reason, a strong tradition of state.
I will add another point which is connected to this one as that is to say,
the more civil a society is able to be governed by itself,
the more, of course, it will escape from it's tradition and
they are less developed the state is.
Now we have also to take into account another aspect of this specificity,
that's to say, the cultural background of the state.
The state in his history is clearly
related to the Christian culture.
As we mentioned in the last lecture,
Christianism is probably bearing the state model.
That's to say, this conception of separateness
between temporality and spirituality.
This vision of secularism, but also this institutional culture.
This culture of representation.
The way the church, the Roman Catholic church organize itself
in an administration, territorial administration, judicial administration,
fiscal and tax administration and so on.
All these trends were imitated by the kings and
the state builders for shaping the new
nation state which was in creation from
the 13th, and the 14th century.
Last point, which was addressed by the great Sociologist Charles Tilly.
In that in the European history, that was a very
dense interaction into playing between state and war.
War making state making as established Charles Tilly.
This means that the history of the state building
in Europe is clearly connected to the war history and
that the main feature of the state are connected to the main features of the war,
and that's why also Horps stressed that there
is an interaction between state and security.
The security function was conceived at
the very center of the state institution and
it's not possible to have in mind state without
having in mind, security as we elaborate later.
This is ladies and gentlemen, what we call the Westphalian
system which took place in the 17th century and
which implied a new international order which is made of
the position of these units of these territorial nation states.
The question now is what about those political systems,
which now are reluctant to this model?
This implies empires.
We have some surviving empires like China,
like Russia which are not really conceived as states and
what about those Important states which we are not able to group
as new political systems, for instance, in Africa or Asia.
[MUSIC]
