Lenses of Analysis is a webbook that offers a conceptual framework for understanding international relations. It is premised on the notion that certain simplifying assumptions can make the complexity of world politics more manageable, and thus the study of it more rewarding.
There is a difference between a casual observer of world politics and a student of international relations. We should expect general commentary and opinion from the former. From the latter, however, we expect accurate description, supported explanation, and perhaps even generalized prescriptions and predictions. To move from assertion to persuasive argument, we need to examine our subject in a systematic way; that is, we need to decide what to examine and then develop an understanding of how the various elements of what we are analyzing connect to each other and relate to some broader concept. This webbook suggests that the most significant first step to studying international relations is the choice of the basic assumption one makes about what actually drives world politics. This basic assumption has a powerful effect, because it determines which variables and factors will receive the most attention and study. This choice of focus, in turn, affects the specific explanations of international events as well as the conclusions one reaches about international relations in general.
World politics during the latter half of the twentieth century was dominated by two superpowers-—the United States and the Soviet Union. As the competition between these two countries came to an end in the early 1990s with the collapse of the Soviet empire, there was a flurry of analysis and editorials suggesting that international relations had suddenly become more complex. Attention focused on ethnic conflict and a seeming reemergence of virulent nationalism. Civil wars combined with disputes over borders to provide a picture of a new trend toward fragmentation. Concurrently, technological advances seemed to be spurring economic activity to greater degrees of integration at a global level. By the late 1990s, ethnic cleansing and globalization were common terms in the lexicon of world affairs.
It is reasonable to assume new activity is the manifestation of unique phenomena and to conclude that much of what was being labeled “revolutionary” did represent a measurable discontinuity with past phenomena. But there is another possibility. International relations may not be any more complex with the end of the cold war and the emergence of the Internet than they were before. It is possible that international relations have always been highly complex, but what changed toward the end of the millennium was that it became more difficult to understand that complexity. The cold war not only defined the interaction between states, but it represented a powerful conceptual filter through which political scientists and others studied those interactions. The prism of competition between East versus West, communism versus democratic capitalism, led to different labels and different analyses. What now is viewed as ethnic conflict may have been (mis?)labeled ideological conflict. Technological advance may have been viewed primarily through a military-security perspective, rather than an economic-profit model. (Remember the network of computers that led to the Internet was originally designed as a nonhierarchical communication system to guard against a surprise massive Soviet nuclear attack.)
The basic assumptions we make about what drives international relations actually structure our study of international relations. In the autumn of 2000, the leader of Serbia fell out of power. Was this the triumph of democracy? The result of NATO military intervention? Economic sanctions and the funding of opposition groups? Or was it poor decision making on the part of Slobodan Milosevic? Answering this question is not simply important for historical curiosity, but it may have a direct impact on future international relations. If the case can be made that regime change required military intervention, the possibility of such intervention in the future in other parts of the world might increase. But what if military intervention was not required, but just believed to be the key causal variable in bringing down the dictatorship of Milosevic? Could this inaccurate read of history lead to ineffective and inappropriate uses of force in the future? It would not be the first time that the so-called lessons of history have been misapplied. The academic perspective of political science requires the student to move beyond just accurate description of events and to search for a persuasive explanation for these occurrences. But the nature of the subject matter is quite practical. These explanations of international relations can affect policy and thus affect people's lives in dramatic ways.
The premise of this webbook is the idea that one must make simplifying assumptions about world politics in order to gain an understanding of the enormous complexity of international relations. Without these basic assumptions, it is difficult to move beyond mere description and answer why something happens. How you decide to look at something ultimately affects the conclusions you draw. Just as the image of something changes if you look through a microscope or through a pair of binoculars, so too does analysis change when you assume certain clusters of causal variables are more important than others. If you look out a window with a pair of binoculars, certain things will come clearly into your view. Look out that same window, but this time with a magnifying glass, and although you are looking at the same general area, what becomes clear to you is utterly different; the picture has changed. The same effect is true of theoretical assumptions. If we assume that certain variables are more important to study than others, that determination will affect what factors we focus on when studying an event; we will see those factors more clearly than all others. That is what the three hyperlink lenses denote. They are simply representations of our conceptual biases, which, when dealing with complex subjects, are invariably relied upon.
If you assume that individual leaders are more important than the governance structure of states, you will understand the origins of the Second World War much differently than someone who assumes the distribution of power trumps all else. (The former analysis concludes that war does not occur without Adolf Hitler in power; the latter, that conflict would have been likely in Europe even if Hitler himself did not rise to control Germany.) When you filter information through your own conceptual lens to study the origins of the Second World War, what comes into view?
Lenses of Analysis is an interactive presentation of the framework known in political science as “levels of analysis.” By employing a flexible navigation structure in which students themselves choose how to engage with the study of international relations, the webbook attempts to emphasize the basic notion that choice of assumptions affects what you study and thus affects the conclusions you draw. If students filter their study through the First Lens, they will examine the impact of individual leaders and their decision making. By choosing to view the same international event through the Second Lens, a different set of variables receives attention—the domestic structure of states. When they click on the Third Lens, concentration shifts to the systemic distribution of power and international organizations. Each of these lenses focuses attention on a particular factor that is significant for explaining international politics.
Three general learning paths are supported. First, the separation of variables into distinct clusters that can be retrieved through a click on a particular lens will help interactively emphasize the analytical distinction between certain assumptions. Second, the nonlinear navigation (students can start their case study wherever they want) reemphasizes this point through a different learning path. The importance of choice should be apparent when the student goes to a different lens to examine the same research case. (An instructor might wish to have a student stop with one lens and debate another student who has focused solely on a different lens. Students themselves may wish to discuss with each other along these lines.) Third, students will be challenged to determine whether all three lenses are necessary for strong explanation. The students are left to pull together the competing views they have examined through each lens. While clicking through all three lenses certainly will provide more detail, it should not be presumed that mixing all three leads to better explanation. One lens may become preferred over others; it may be the basis for a sustainable explanation.
Additionally, students should get a feel for how the discipline of political science divides itself over basic assumptions. Lenses of Analysis offers the most simplified version of levels of analysis clustering study around individuals, the domestic structure of states, and the international system. Before engaging in the sophisticated examination of how different frameworks and assumptions might be integrated into more comprehensive theory (a call consistently made, but rarely answered within the profession of political science), students should be aided through Lenses of Analysis in clarifying the fault lines that exist between scholars of international relations.
The site is divided into two sections: Demo, and Main. The demo is an open site that provides an example of how Lenses of Analysis works. Students can click through a segment of a case study on the Persian Gulf War of 1991. The main section may be entered through the use of a password obtained online. This section contains a full introduction to the conceptual framework of Lenses of Analysis. The literature and debates concerning the traditional levels of analysis framework are presented and students are provided an explanation of how the sets of variables associated with each lens differ. The trade-off between the parsimony of this approach and more detailed complex modeling is also discussed, as well as how Lenses relates to Kenneth Waltz's original conception of three images found in his seminal work, Man, the State and War. The introduction of each lens is supported with illustrative examples of contemporary international politics as well as the classic historical case of the Peloponnesian War. The student then can use the framework to guide an examination of two more detailed cases—the Kosovo intervention of 1999 and the economic integration effort of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In each section students can work through a series of linked question strings, in which the answer to one question leads to feedback and other related questions and answers. Throughout the site, students may click on links to glossary definitions, outside sites of related importance, and audiovisual information that captures key aspects of certain variables.
The demo is organized around the research question, why did Iraq and the coalition of the United Nations led by the United States go to war in January 1991? The demo offers a brief overview of the question, a historical background section, a First Lens analysis of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's decision making, and a single question string related to that discussion. A full lenses-of-analysis approach would look at several other key players, how the domestic structure of the United States and Iraq might have affected the decision for war (Second Lens), and how the influences of the regional balance of power and United Nations inclined both sides to conflict (Third Lens). In the main section, the Kosovo and NAFTA cases are presented through all three lenses with question strings attached to each. Additionally, each lens is discussed in detail in main section's introductory chapter.