Are you going away and need to make sure someone is keeping an eye on your house or investment property?

Have an experienced person provide peace of mind to you – affordable, effective, trusted.

—

Residential House Sitting Services Offered:

• Security checks;
• Leak checks;
• Thermostat check;
• Mail/Newspapers;
• Feeding and watering of small animals.

Additional Residential House Sitting Services Available Upon Request:

• Live-in;
• Cleaning;
• Open/Close windows as requested;
• Recycling and garbage removal;
• Walk shovelled;
• Lethbridge airport service;
• Calgary airport service;
• Great Falls airport service;
• Purchase requested food items for your return;
• + other services that are required during your absence.

—

Investment Property Assurance Services Offered:

• Daily drive-by;
• First response to problems or emergencies;
• Weekly status updates by email/phone/skype;
• Rent collection and direct deposit;
• Coordination of maintenance and repairs (as requested and authorized);
• + other services that may be required.

—

More than a decade of experience in projects such as:

• acreage development;
• cement footings, pads, and sidewalks;
• eavestrough, soffit and fascia;
• electrical fixture installation;
• flooring – hardwood, linoleum, tile;
• framing and decking;
• landscaping and tree planting;
• painting and staining | interior and exterior;
• basic plumbing retrofits;
• vinyl siding;
• window and door installation;
• house sitting;
• rent collection and
• property assurance.

—

Top 5 Reasons to Use Project Goodman Property Management Services:

1. Assurance and security: have peace of mind knowing an experienced person is looking after your property;
2. Dedication: to complete client satisfaction;
3. Quality service: in renovation, general maintenance, and property management services for investment properties or personal residences;
4. Affordable: saving you money;
5. Experience: proudly serving Southern Alberta since 2000.

—

Short Term | Long Term | Flexible

—

For more information or to get a complete quote please contact Curtis M. Goodman – 403 – 942 – 2897 or info @ projectgoodman.com:

• Please be detailed, send pictures (if necessary), and remember to include contact information;
• I can make no guarantees of my availability – unless we have an agreement in place;
• I will promptly respond to all inquiries;
• These services are currently only offered in Lethbridge and surrounding area in Southern Alberta.

Curtis Matwychuk-Goodman

—

The following document is produced as a result of being contacted by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) to provide an outline for a possible documentary called “The Race to 8 Billion – 1492 to 2022.”  Based on the requests of the producers, please find attached a brief outline of major historical episodes that may be of interest to the feature.  [editors note: was not contacted by BBC]

Included with each major theme are pivotal moments of human history that transformed the way we understand the world – with brief discussion of the personalities who had a role in the growth of human perception.  Rationale behind each event will should be apparent within the explanation of each major theme; as they each contributed to the process of globalization.  Each event presented herein is presented as part of larger patterns of globalization that have developed over time.  These patterns of globalization will be the focus of the conclusion of this outline.

Focusing on individuals and their influence on historical outcomes and developments provides real case studies for examination.  People have been the driver in creating change and pushing the modern boundaries of our understanding of the world around us.  Christopher Columbus, the Crown of Castile and Aragon, Sir Francis Blake, King Charles, Queen Elizabeth, Napoleon, Sir Sandford Fleming, Fredrick Jackson Turner, Edward Said, Eleanor Roosevelt, and George W. Bush are but a few names that will be essential to creating a comprehensive documentary of the time period between 1492 and 2022.   By no means is this list meant to be comprehensive, rather a point of beginning.

Time should be a central theme in the documentary.  Especially the developments that occurred that changed human perception on space and time.  The change in human understanding of the universe should be a central topic.  The following is not presented in a chronological order – which the producer should keep in mind – instead the case studies are offered in vignettes based on their relative commonalities.

The heliocentric model of the universe, as discussed by Copernicus, changed the traditional theocratic belief that the Earth was central to everything in our universe.  Heliocentricity described the Earth as rotating around the sun.  This was a fundamental challenge to the existing hierarchy of knowledge of the day.

During this same time period the standardization of time was beginning across Europe.  A common calendar and the invention of the clock provide unity to people across great distances.  This was surrounded by the greater acceptance of logic and reason in society.  This was best expressed through the grounding of scientific method overtaking the conscious of European intellects.  The thought process was, in the same way a clock can be perfectly set, the universe may be too – which drove scientific inquiry into such areas as astronomy, biology, chemistry, palaeontology, and many other areas of inquest.

The standardization of time through the calendar and clock provided many benefits to civilization.  In much the same way as the steam engine provided the drive for connecting geographically distant places with relative ease.  Transportation could be coordinated and given better scheduled, which maximized the possibilities of economies of scale in trade and commerce.  This affected all ways of life, from the way we organized our social networks and interacted with others in distant lands to the way armies could be coordinated across vast distance.

A pivotal example of the way human conception of time changed is Einstein’s theory of relativity.  Although this would seem to jump ahead to the twentieth century, presenting this contrast to the rapid development of human thought would give context to how much has changed in such a short time span.  Einstein challenged the fundamental belief of time by saying it was relative.  Instead of being set in stone or being absolutely standardized, time is relative to the circumstance – in much the same way as time slows down as it approaches the speed of light.  This was inferred based on the observation of gravitational effects on light in the universe.  Such observations were made as the result of advancements and developments in technology.  Einstein’s theory challenged the notion that the universe was like a clock.  Instead of being relatively ordered the universe may be chaotic and unordered.

This presents a fundamental way the human race has developed during this time period.  Change in ideas or ways of thought is a prime focus for the documentary.  The development of ways of knowledge and understandings of the structure of our existence must be central to the film.  Demonstrating that human conception of the world changes quickly as events shape the course of history can be done by examining the following key events and the people who shaped them.

In 1492 Spain emerged from the Ottoman Rule and entered was has been called the Golden Age of Enlightenment.  It was during this time that the crown of Castile and Aragon authorized and funded the voyage of Christopher Columbus.  The famous discovery of North America was almost in accidental fashion, as it was initially hoped to navigate a sea-route to the East Indies.  The new land is donated to the Crown by the Roman Catholic Pope – giving dominion over the new world.  Coupled with the case of the Inquisition, both of these cases provides evidence of the power of the Roman Catholic Church and the relative importance of political power in Spanish society.  Although the right to ‘own’ land or the influence of the church was not entirely new, it would become the central driver for centuries to come.

The technique of controlling land was used to establish trade and aid in territorial expansion of political interest.  Similar events occur in different areas of the world; Britain provides royal consent for corporate control of certain geographic areas, the Pope provided consent for Spain’s territorial expansion.  Britain focused on many places in the world – from North America to India, while Spain primarily focused on the continents of South and Central America.

The Royal Charter of the Hudson’s Bay Company followed the Glorious Revolution in England.  Wherein, King Charles was reinstated as the monarchy in 1670 there were fundamental changes to government: parliament was in control of the public purse, Roman Catholicism was embraced, and the will of the commons was to subordinate the monarchy’s power.  In addition to this Greenwich Mean Time was established – which gave significance to the kingdom of England as the standard .  The Hudson Bay Charter provided exclusive monopoly rights to the company for all territory within the Hudson Bay drainage basin – to be known as Rupert’s land.  Rupert was King Charles’ brother and the first governor of the company.  This is one of many acts of nepotism that could be feature in the film.  The Charter comprised approximately forty percent of Canada and was given with no direct consultation of the indigenous population.

Spain’s was among many with efforts to expand the territorial base of what would become national empires.  The Dutch and British were eager to discover new lands during this same time.  The Dutch East India Company and the British East India Company were privately backed entities that were both empowered by their local crowns to engage the New World in an imperial fashion.  These monarchies – soon to be national entities – would embark on imperial globalization through the development of naval powers.

A strong navy was required to protect precious trade routes to resource based colonies across the world.  Oceans became the modern highways of commerce – the same way rail networks began to connect parts of Europe and the internet connects the world today across space and time.  These highways of commerce required protection from pirates and plunderers.  Although, it is important to note that pirates did serve British interests as a private force looting rival Spanish galleons.  Such acts served to dis-empower the competition.   Sir Francis Blake would be an ideal person to profile in this section; especially his relations with Queen Elizabeth.  Blake’s private pirate fleets would eventually form the basis of the Royal British Navy – an invaluable tool of British national interest.

The emergence of the Westphalia State should be a central topic of discussion.  The Treaty of Westphalia provided incentive for states to respect the sovereignty of the other nations.  The mutual interests and potential for relative gains through cooperation provided the leverage to assure relative peace among European nations.  While the drive was on to conquer the new world the peace among nations enabled the Enlightenment era to thrive.  This allowed the development of intellectual thought and advancement in many areas of key interest to humanity – like agriculture, industry and medicine.  The Agriculture Revolution and the Industrial Revolution should be highlighted as modern turning points of civilization.

As nation-states conquered the New World there was resistance on many levels.  In many instances of territorial expansion the Conquistadores or merchants would be met with resistance by the local populations.  In many instances the result was massive bloodshed or the outright killing of local populations as a means of control.  The conquerors were technologically advanced in their methods of death – having advanced through the steel age, which resulted in the wielding of swords and heavy armour.  Not to mention the harnessing of work animals like the horse to offer a impending bestial posture for the Spanish conquistadores.

In the case of Spain’s conquest of the Inca Empire of South America the results were impressive.  Francisco Pizzaro travelled across the globe with a force of less than 200.  These Spanish forces were able to topple the Inca social structure in a very short time.  Decimating the local culture and plundering the riches; the Spanish were particularly brutal in their efforts to dominate foreign lands.   The shipment of wealth back to the mother country would be common among many nations.

In the case of Canada and North America there was intense colonization of the Eastern part of the continent by the newly arrived colonists of Dutch, British and French heritage.  These colonists created local resources economies that would ship precious cargoes back to mainland Europe to fuel the growing Industrial Revolution.  While foreign national governments attempted to provide governance and guidance to the outlying colonies it was often a one-way relationship.  Where the motherland experienced the influx of wealth and prosperity; while the hinterland of the colonies suffered from over taxation and underinvested local infrastructure.

Sir Sandford Fleming was Canada’s foremost railway surveyor and construction engineer of the 19th century and a distinguished inventor and scientist.  He came to Canada in 1845 after studying science and engineering and serving a professional apprenticeship in Scotland.  Fleming joined the engineering staff of the Ontario, Simcoe and Huron Railway, becoming engineer in chief of the successor Northern Railway.  By 1863 he was appointed him chief surveyor of the first portion of a proposed railway from Québec City to Halifax and Saint John.  His experience and technological knowledge led to his routing and designing one of the longest cross-continental railway projects of its day – the Canadian Pacific Railway from Ontario to the West Coast.  This project was fundamental in establishing the Canadian economy and promoting the development of efficient cross-continental trade networks.  One project among many that could be featured; as it documents the importance of private funding of major public goods.  Fleming is also a person of interest as he had an instrumental proposal that brought forth worldwide standard for time zones – which would effectively create twenty-four world time zones.  This further demonstrates the standardization and commonalities across distance.

Money, currency and wealth must be central to the understanding of how world societies evolved.  “Follow the money” is a popular phrase that describes the importance of money in almost anything.  Imperial domination of distant lands was economically viable – as it resulted in the transfer of wealth from one region to another.  According to Newton, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction – which proves true with the eventual decolonization movement of the nineteenth and twentieth century’s.

The problems arising from colonization led to revolts by the colonies.  In the instance of the United States of America, a violent war was fought against British forces in order to gain independence in 1776.  In the case of Canada, political will led to the creation of the Dominion of Canada, 1867 – which would later gain independence and sovereignty (1931 and 1982) from British rule through a peaceful and slow transition.   This dichotomy within North America is a good case study to demonstrate how British colonial power changed as the pressures to maintain a global empire eventually became an economic burden.

Dealing with indigenous populations over the long term became an issue for newly colonized areas of the world.  The abundant resources of the New World offered unparalleled opportunity to prosper.  However, indigenous populations were keen on protecting their inherent right to use the land as they traditionally had.  In some cases the interactions between the newly arrived settlers and the natives were peaceful.

In the case of Sir William Johnson, who was involved in the Royal Proclamation of 1768, he pioneered the concept of treaty federalism.  His approach was in peace-making.  In the case of the Halderman Deed the six nations of the Mohawk, Onondaga, Seneca, Cayuga and Oneida, organized under the League of Peace or Iroquois Confederacy provided the basis for negotiating a treaty for six miles on either side of the Grand River in what is now Ontario.  This peaceful technique was instrumental in the future protection of Canada, as the Tecumseh Indians would band together in defence of Canada during the War of 1812 between the United States and Canada.

In other cases, the indigenous population were marginalized in favour of a new social and economic regime brought by the new settling populations.  In Canada, and many other parts of the world, there was the intentional spreading of disease like smallpox through the trade of infected blankets with local populations.  Since these populations were unfamiliar with the foreign European diseases the spread was rampant and usually resulted in high death rates.  There was also the case of social segregation or forced integration with society.  Using treaties as instruments of marginalizing native populations in North America resulted in the territorial basis of many indigenous groups shrinking considerably over time.  The nature of negotiating the treaties was often coercive in nature or was predatory in the fact that many indigenous leaders did not know what they were agreeing to.  The case of the Residential Schools Incident in Canada specifically highlights the way native groups were displaced and manipulated as a method of integration.

The disregard for the rights of indigenous populations was central to the conquest of the New World.  Either by decree of religious or monarchical powers, individuals became involved in the obliteration of some societies with little regard for the consequences.  This was based upon an idea of cultural superiority.

This notion was challenged by Franz Boaz, who is best known as the father of anthropology.  Boaz was responsible for bringing the idea of cultural relativism into existence – where one’s beliefs and activities should be considered in relation to their culture.  He argued that it is wrong to rank or judge cultures against our own because each culture has its own unique beauty.

Regardless of the intellectual advancements the thirst for power has always been immense through this time period.  This is founded in the dominating nature of the Napoleon Empire.  This is further evidenced in the fact that the Nazi’s came to power and advanced the idea of cultural superiority brought on by nationalism.  The classification of cultures as advanced and barbaric led to global conflict and the creation of more complex methods of killing one another.

The Frontier Thesis of Frederick Jackson Turner was presented in 1893 at the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago.  Turner argued that the origin of the distinctive equalitarian, democratic, aggressive, and innovative features of the American character had been due to the American frontier experience.  He stressed the process of the moving frontier line and the related impact it had on pioneers who had to deal with the unknown of what is beyond the frontier.  Constantly forging forward into the unknown, the frontier created freedom, by dismantling the treachery of outdated customs and forcing new experience through activities and institutions.

Turner’s thesis was popular because it explained why the American people and American government were so different from their European heritages.  Although, Turner pointed to the fact that the American frontier may have come to an end – which he hinted could lead to the downfall of American uniqueness and prosperity.  However, the frontier represented the beginning of a new stage in the American way of life – similar to their European ancestors – where the frontier was now overseas.

Edward Said was an influential voice in the colonization and decolonization debate.  He wrote an influential book called Orientalism; it focused on the western study of eastern cultures.  Orientalism is a classic of post-colonial literature, written during a period of formal decolonization by the IMF, World Bank and Military efforts.  Said identified the role of social scientists, painters, sculptures, scholars, etc as contributors to literature base that sees culture through a specific lens – in particular when Napoleon invaded new lands like Egypt he would bring the Savants to record culture in such a way as to justify imperial domination; savants glorify empire building; simply the creation of false understandings that shape perceptions of distant lands.  This explains American and European prejudice against Arab-Islamic cultures.  Said notes that often racist forms of self-affirmation of imperial domination are used instead of objective study of distant lands; often dichotomies are presented: the weak, feminine, and irrational East; strong, masculine, and superior West.  Said provides a rationale for the relations between cultural groups.

Eleanor Roosevelt was the First Lady of the United States during F.D. Roosevelt’s term.  She changed the role of First Lady by holding close to 400 press conferences of her own initiative.  She campaigned as a supporter of Roosevelt’s New Deal policies; in doing so she leveraged her political position as a civil rights leader.  Years later, Harry Truman appointed her delegate to the UN- General Assembly in 1945.  As the USA delegate she would chair the UN committee on Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  This document presents a charter of basic rights entitled to every human on this Earth.  The declaration was passed in 1948.  This event demonstrates how individual ambition can result in major shifts in the way we think about our world.

Central to key moments in history should be September 11^th, 2001 and the felling of the Twin Towers in New York City.  As a major moment in modern history, this event changed the way our world thinks about security and fear, and individual and group rights.  It was one of the most watched televised events in history.  At the heart of the largest centre of commerce in the world the image of planes exploding into the towers of modern capitalist institutions is particularly striking.  The control of information around the events of this day has provided the impetus for the second Gulf War in Afghanistan and Iraq – as well as the “War on Terror.”  This phrase used by the George W. Bush administration characterized the turn of the millennia; as fear was leveraged against a connected culture through the pervasiveness of television and internet.

These modern modes of communication created a common dialogue among many Western nations where a pattern of “us” versus “them” existed.  This mentality is nothing new; as it was the basis for much of the expansion of civilization from 1492 onwards.  From events like the Spanish Inquisition to imperial colonization – this mentality created a divide among groups of people.

However, this time period also was characterized by eras of cooperation.  Moments of cooperation exist in the standardization of time, treaty federalism of Sir William Johnson, and efforts to codify international law by Eleanor Roosevelt.

There have been many people who have attempted to explain the relations between people.  Their theories create the basis of our knowledge of the world around us.  From Einstein to Edward Said – these intellectuals should be a key focus of the documentary; especially their ability to push the limits of how we understand our relation to one another.  Each individual presented herein represents the dichotomy of human nature – anarchy or cooperation.

Humans have either worked together for progress, like standardization of time, money, and modes of commerce in pursuit of relative gains; or humans have struggled against one another in pursuit of absolute gains.

Curtis Matwychuk-Goodman

—

Contents

Section I  – Proposed FDI in Potash Corporation by BHP Billiton

Section II – Canadian Rejection of FDI &  the Declaration of a Strategically Significant Industry

Section III – International Relations Theoretical Foundation for Canada’s Position

Theoretical Discussion.

Summary.

Bibliography.

—

oreign direct investment has been a key component of the development of the modern Canadian economy.  Since before confederation in 1867 an economic heritage developed based upon foreign investments from European and American sources.  The foreign capital provided basis for much of the infrastructure required to exploit the wealth and diversity of natural resources throughout the farthest reaches of Canada.  This paper will explore a most recent example of Canadian rejection of foreign direct investment – the 2010 case where a hostile bid for Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan was rejected on the grounds of preserving national interest.  This case is unique because it is the second such case in the past three years that has come to define the investment climate of the Canadian economy under Stephen Harper’s conservative government.  This paper will seek to answer the question of whether international relations theory is relevant in the formulation of foreign and domestic policy.

In doing so, this paper will first provide an overview of the case and provide context for why the rejection of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Canada matters.  It will explore the nature of the proposed acquisition of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan (Potash Corp), the largest global supplier of potash, by BHP Billiton Limited (BHP) an Australian company that is currently the world leader in the iron-ore and coal industries, to name a couple.  Background information on each company will provide clarity to the importance of the proposed deal.  Ultimately this paper will delineate the exact impact such a deal would have on Canadian interests by examining the nature of the global mining industry and the nature of the potash resource for Canada in comparison to the rest of the world. 

Once the nature of the deal is clear this paper will then examine the relevance of federal and provincial governments in reaching the final decision of deterrence.  It will become clear that these domestic actors play an important role in defining the terms of foreign direct investment.  Although, the actual authority of domestic interests on FDI is concentrated at the federal level the provincial governments play a key role in deciding whether to intervene against FDI.  Drawing upon research by Steven Globerman and Daniel Shapiro this paper will demonstrate three distinctive eras of government regimes in response to FDI.  It will become clear that the government of Canada has transformed to become more welcoming of FDI which is reflected in the changing regulations of Foreign Investment Review Agency (FIRA) to the Investment Canada Act.  This second section of the paper will attempt to answer the question – if Canada has become more welcoming to FDI in recent years, then why is the current administration blocking the sale of Potash Corp to foreign interests?

The third section of this paper will explore the theoretical framework of international relations theory to attempt to rationalize why Canada rejected FDI in Potash Corp.  It is generally accepted that the body of work on international relations theory is expansive.  To attempt to apply each major theoretical model – ranging from realism, liberalism, historical structural, to constructivist or reflectivist theoretical approaches – would not provide an adequate analysis of the issue at hand.  Instead this paper will only examine the theoretical approach known as liberalism.

Specifically this paper will focus on the written works: “Liberal International Theory: Commond Threads Divergent Strands,” by Mark W. Zacher and Richard A. Matthew; “International Public Goods Without International Government,” by Charles Kindleberger;   “Hegemony in the World Political Economy,” by Robert Keohane; and “Democracy and Globalization,” by David Held.  This paper will explore each article, describing the central argument of each author.  Once the foundation for liberal theory has been established it will then be utilized to develop an understanding of Canada’s position on foreign direct investment. This paper will demonstrate that international relations theory is indeed relevant to the formulation of Canadian policy positions.

Section I
– Proposed FDI in Potash Corporation by BHP Billiton –

Potash Corp has recently been given status as a strategically vital industry to Canadian interests after an unsolicited bid by Australian company BHP Billiton Limited (BHP) was rejected by Canadian regulators.   The rejection of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Canada should be considered an important event since Canada is not historically known to be in opposition to free market principles.  In a speech given by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the World Economic Forum in January 2010, he says that Canada plays a leadership role in the advocacy and protection of the free market.  Given the participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO) as well as bi/multi-lateral free trade agreements and the public affirmation of the benefits of free and open trade between nations Canada should be considered a steward of free market principles (Harper, 2010, p. 5).  However, the recent case of protectionism against FDI in Potash Corp marks an important event that may indicate a rising trend against free market principles.

The following section will provide background on Potash Corp and will try to rationalize how the firm gained its special status in Canada.  The discussion will be centered on the relevant history of both companies, Potash Corp and BHP; information on the proposed acquisition; the nature of the global mining industry; and the related importance of natural resource control to Canadian national interests.

According to the history available on the company website, Potash Corp originally began operations as a crown corporation of the province of Saskatchewan in 1975.  Potash Corp was later transformed into a public company after an initial public offering in 1989 for $18.00 per share.  As a publicly traded company Potash Corp is listed on both the Toronto and New York Stock Exchange.  Through the years the company has strategically acquired and merged with potash mines and chemical technology companies from around the world.  Currently Potash Corp has operations and business interests spanning several countries from Canada, Chile, China, Israel, Jordan, to the United States.  The results of the management decisions has positioned Potash Corp as the world’s largest fertilizer producer serving three distinct markets – agriculture, animal nutrition and industrial chemicals – with three distinctive product components – nitrogen, phosphates, and potash.  Each of these components is essential to the formulation of fertilizers. (Potash Corp, 2010)

The operating environment of Potash Corp makes the company ideally suited to maintain it’s near monopoly status in the fertilizer industry.  As part of the global mining industry Potash Corp faces many of the same factors that affect both supply and demand.  The supply of fertilizers is characterized by “substantial barriers to entry, few producers, low government ownership, and no known product substitutes” (Potash Corp, 2010, p. 1).  While the demand for fertilizer is closely correlated to growth in population – where more population signals greater demand for agriculture products.  In the case of a near-fixed amount of farmland throughout the world there is great pressure for each acre to produce more, which is typically assisted by the use of fertilizers.  Potash Corp estimates that without the use of fertilizer forty per cent more farmland would be required to produce the same amount of food (Potash Corp – 5Ws, p. 4).

The bulk of Potash Corp. operations are split between: Canada, where the bulk of potash production occurs because of the nature of the resource deposits; and the United States, which produces and refines phosphates and nitrogen for global export (Potash Corp, 2010).  The primary markets for Potash Corp are China, India, Brazil, South East Asia and North America – wherein China consumes nearly twenty per cent of the total global supply (Reuters, 2010).

One of the reasons Potash Corp has been able to develop into a global leader is the way they have leveraged their dominance in the Saskatchewan marketplace.  After all, Saskatchewan has the location advantage of being the site of “more than half of the world’s potash reserves” and is the leading producer of potash with ten operational mines (Bouw, 2010).  Half of which are operated by Potash Corp.  Furthermore, Saskatchewan has a history of public investment in the economy as a means of jump-starting industry.  The province still maintains public monopolies in sectors like insurance, energy and telecommunications.  The result of initial provincial involvement in the potash industry has been astounding.  The economic impact for the province for Potash Corp alone is borne in the establishment of over 5,000 jobs and the creation of millions of dollars in tax revenue for the provincial government (Hervieux-Payette, 2010).  These benefits are magnified given the local economic trickle-down each mine contributes to Saskatchewan’s economy.

In the summer of 2010 BHP Billiton Limited, an Australian company, made an unsolicited bid to purchase all ownership interests in Potash Corp.  In an August 2010 press release statement issued by Potash Corp the company rejected the $130 per share offer on the grounds that it was “wholly inadequate”.  The company’s President and Chief Executive Officer Bill Doyle stated that the bid fails to “reflect the value of our premier position in a strategically vital industry and our unparalleled future growth prospects. (Potash Corp, 2010)

The company wishing to acquire Potash Corp is BHP Billiton Limited (BHP), a major international resources company involved primarily in mineral exploration and production.  As the “world’s largest coal exporter and third-largest iron-ore shipper” BHP’s economic influence and power is both diverse and enormous (Keenan, 2010).  The Australian-based company operates on all continents of the world and has a history of regulator rejection of the hostile foreign direct investment methods the firm often pursues.

For example, in 2008 BHP made numerous unsolicited offers to invest in the British-Australian company Rio Tinto Group, the second largest iron-ore producer in the world.  The proposed deal was important because it was the largest proposed merger in history, valued at $119 billion dollars which would have effectively provided BHP with near-monopoly powers over the global iron-ore supply (The Economist – Business Section, 2008).  Given the potential of the deal to create a tight grip on iron-ore pricing the European Union’s competition authorities made objection to the merger (Ibid).

Given BHP’s international position as a leader in the supply of strategically vital minerals, like iron-ore, the company would have much to gain by diversifying their portfolio to include other strategically vital industries like agriculture.  It quickly becomes clear that BHP has much to gain from the proposed deal,

Buying Potash Corp., owner of about 20 percent of global potash output capacity, would propel BHP to the top of the league of producers of the mineral, a form of potassium used by farmers to help boost crop yields by improving the ability of plants to withstand dry soil conditions” (Keenan & Behrmann, BHP Billiton Makes Hostile $40 Billion Bid for Potash, 2010).

The addition of Potash Corp would enable the company to gain a strong-hold in the supply of fertilizers to global markets.  It would also provide BHP with a substantial amount of control of one of Canada’s most prized prairie resources that has experienced a boom in the past decade as demand has surged from developing nations like China and India (Reuters, 2010).

As the world’s population continues to increase so will the importance of agriculture-related industries like potash-based fertilizer producers.  Interestingly, BHP had already submitted a proposal to Canadian regulators to launch a new potash mine in Saskatchewan before making the bid for Potash Corp (The Economist, 2010).  This suggests that BHP will enter the Canadian market regardless; the acquisition of Potash Corp would have merely provided the foundation for a near-monopoly over the Canadian production of potash.   If this is the case, why did the Canadian regulators decide to block FDI by BHP?

Section II
– Canadian Rejection of FDI &
the Declaration of a Strategically Significant Industry –

The provincial and federal governments of Canada were not in favour of the proposed acquisition and made their positions clear.  The province of Saskatchewan was quick to oppose the BHP bid to acquire Potash Corp based on the potential of the resource company in relation to the future of Saskatchewan and Canadian interests.  As an ardent opponent Brad Wall, premier of Saskatchewan, points to the fundamental issue at hand, “What other takeover involves 25 to 30% of the world’s anything? … This is not like other takeovers we have contemplated in the country” (as quoted in Koven, 2010).  It is estimated that Potash Corp controls 20 per cent of the global potash supply; producing approximately 12 million metric tons of potassium chloride in 2009, and is expecting to near 20 million by 2014 (Reuters, 2010).  Potash Corp is one of the last remaining owned Canadian mining companies and maintains a strategically dominant position in the international fertilizer market that is paralleled by no other transnational company.

The sub-federal, or provincial, governments of Canada do not have express formal right to block FDI in their respective jurisdictions.  The power of protection over FDI rests at the federal level.  Canada has established ownership restrictions in sectors such as air transport, broadcasting, financial services, telecommunications and uranium mining.  Each of these areas has respective bearing on maintaining Canadian autonomy over national security, culture and heritage, economic solvency, national security and international non-proliferation objectives.  Therefore extra scrutiny by the federal government has always existed which is no different than other jurisdictions like the United States and the European Union.  However, Canada is “one of the few industrialized countries to have foreign investment rules requiring the review of proposed foreign investment proposals based on monetary thresholds” (Competition Policy Review Panel: Executive Summary, 2008).

At the federal level Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, signaled that the attempted hostile takeover would not be a net benefit to Canadians and therefore motioned to deny the acquisition.  Blocking the takeover was done on three-part reasoning; that there would be no ‘net benefit’ effect “on Canada’s ability to compete in world markets; on productivity, efficiency and innovation in Canada; and on the country’s overall level of economic activity” (Ibbitson, 2010).

In the November 4^th issue, The Economist identifies that party politics most likely play a larger role in Harper’s government decision to block the takeover bid on the grounds it would not be a net benefit to Canadians – his party included.  The case is considered unique because “…in the past 25 years, the country has shot down only one other foreign takeover, a case involving satellites and space missions that was vetoed on grounds of national security” (The Economist, 2010).  The Conservative party is currently supported by nearly all of the possible parliamentary seats in Saskatchewan – thirteen of fourteen. Since the premiers of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba are against the foreign takeover of Potash Corp the federal government must carefully consider the regional wishes to prevent opposition and loss of support in the next election (Ibid).   This suggests that domestic politics have a bearing on the relative success or failure of FDI.

To block FDI in Potash Corp was seen as a controversial ruling by the conservative Harper government which is considered a market-friendly administration (Financial Post, 2010).  However, how does the decision to block FDI in Potash Corp compare to the most recent track record of Canadian market intervention?

According to Globerman and Shapiro Canada has three distinct eras of foreign direct investment policy regimes.  The first era was between 1974 and 1985 and is best characterized by the Foreign Investment Review Act (FIRA).  The FIRA regime of government regulation of FDI in the Canadian market is distinguished by a sense of uncertainty caused by perceived government hostility towards foreign investment.  The government required FDI to be of a ‘significant benefit’ to Canadian interests under FIRA.  This effectively insulated Canadian domestic firms from outside investment which would create competition in the marketplace.  It is estimated that “Over the period 1975-84, the Agency’s disallowance rate was 7.0 percent (Safarian 1993, p.130 as quoted by Globerman & Shapiro, 1999, p. 516).  Although it can never be known how many foreign investors never attempted to invest in Canada because of the uncertainty and added legal and administrative costs associated with ensuring all proposals met FIRA’s expectations.  However, Golberman and Shapiro conclude that during the first era, FIRA had no significant effect on deterring or attracting foreign direct investment (1999, p. 526).

The second era came to be after the realization of the Investment Canada Act of 1985 which fostered greater willingness and openness to greater amounts of FDI in Canada.  Essentially the Investment Canada Act was a renewed and updated version of FIRA that established sectors exempt for review, set a threshold limit for transactions subject to review, and changed the condition of acceptance from ‘significant benefit’ to ‘net benefit’ (Globerman & Shapiro, 1999, p. 517).  Currently the Investment Canada Act thresholds are: “5 million dollars for direct investments and 50 million dollars for indirect transactions,” however, WTO member countries benefit from a 299 million dollars threshold (Industry Canada, 2010).  The update from FIRA to the Investment Canada Act enabled greater foreign access to the Canadian marketplace during the second era described by Globerman and Shapiro.

Under the Investment Canada Act, 1985 the federal government never blocked a foreign takeover on the grounds of failure of the ‘net benefit’ test until 2006.  In the first twenty three years of the Act, between 1983 and 2006 the federal government approved approximately 1,587 foreign takeovers that required formal review and 11,214 foreign acquisitions that required formal notification (CBC, 2008).  Regardless of the added government involvement in the economy no significant deterrence to FDI occurred during this second era; instead the FDI regime of Canada became more clearly defined which increased the accessibility of Canadian markets to foreigners.

The third and final era of FDI regimes discussed by Globerman and Shapiro is based upon the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement, 1988 and subsequent North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994.  Each of these agreements signaled the further liberalization of the Canadian market to greater inward flows of FDI.  “In Canada’s case, for example, the FTA/NAFTA Agreements appear to have significantly increased levels of inward and outward foreign direct investment” (Globerman & Shapiro, 1999, p. 526).  The results of the study by Globerman and Shapiro signify that Canada has been on a trajectory course that has positioned the country as more welcoming to FDI in recent decades – especially given the increasing character of multilateral and bilateral trade agreements Canada has entered into with other nations.

In the study, ‘Motivations for FDI and Domestic Capital Formulation,’ the authors discuss how Canadian outward FDI surpassed inward FDI in the third era of liberalization.  There is a marked difference of the third era to the first; compared to 1970 levels where inwards FDI amounts were four times greater than inwards levels of FDI (Hejazi & Pauly, 2003, p. 285).  This suggests that Canada has experienced greater involvement in foreign markets by making direct investments in other national economies.  This indicates that in recent years Canadians have had a greater interest in ensuring access to free and open markets than ensuring open access for others’ FDI in the domestic Canadian market.

In a study by Nathan Jensen there is clear evidence supporting the fact that democratic governments attract higher levels of foreign direct investment (FDI).  Where “democratic institutions have a large positive effect on FDI inflows … [and] democratic regimes attract as much as 70 percent more FDI as a percentage of GDP than do authoritarian regimes” (Jensen, 2003, p. 612).  Wherein, Jensen defines FDI as private capital flows between countries and firms that provide some element of control over elements like equity, capital, debt and earnings of the firm or resource.  Jensen concludes that democratic political regimes are most likely favourable to foreign investors because the associated risks of dealing with a democratic regime are perceived to be lower.  One of the defining characteristics of a democratic regime is transparency in how decisions are made.  This begs the question – should Canada be considered a democratic economic regime based on the most recent examples of protectionism against FDI?

The evidence to suggest Canada is protectionist is indeed limited.  For the past three decades the Canadian government has only blocked two attempts by foreigners to invest in Canada.  The 2006 government intervention surrounded the sale of the space division of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates (MDA).  The deal was deemed to be a threat to national interests in technology and space and was subsequently the first major government intervention deterring foreign direct investment in Canada since the introduction of FDI regulations.  MDA technologies included Canadarm and Dextre as well as the Radarsat-2 satellite which had major associations with the Canadian Space Agency and were significant factors of Canadian participation in international space efforts.  The second instance of government intervention in FDI attempts is illustrated by the Potash Corp case of 2010 that is at the center of this discussion.

The case of Potash Corp is comparable to MDA because of the impact the firm has on Canada’s control of the potash resource and in turn global food security.  It is also comparable because of the related impact on international relations between Canada and her allies are considered immense.  To illustrate the importance of the resource industry to significant trading partners of Canada we must understand that potash is a strategic input for agriculture and therefore is considered closely linked to national food security.   According to the US Geological Survey, close to half of the total Canadian production in 2008 – nearly five million metric tons of potash (K₂0) – was directly supplied to the United States.  Although the amount of trade in potash fluctuates year-to-year based on prices, Canada is responsible for supplying an average of 86 per cent of all imported potash to the USA between 2005 and 2008.  Based upon this information alone it can be surmised that Canadian interests in the potash industry have direct impact on the food supply of the largest economy in the world.  (Jasinski, January 2010, p. 1 & 2)

Section III
– International Relations Theoretical Foundation for Canada’s Position –

In order to understand Canada’s domestic position on deterring foreign direct investment in the case of Potash Corp it is essential to examine the theoretical models of international relations theory.  Theory often explains action; therefore a review of theory should provide some rationale to the decision to deter FDI in Canada.  It is generally accepted that international relations theory has traditionally been dominated by the realist and liberal perspectives.  For this reason, this paper will utilize the liberal approach to international relations as the basis for illustrating Canada’s FDI rationale.

The chapter “Liberal International Theory: Commond Threads Divergent Strands,” written by Mark W. Zacher and Richard A. Matthew as found in the book Foundations of International Relations Theory is particularly useful to this discussion.  The authors do a comprehensive job delineating the nature of liberalism as an international relations theory.  They argue that there are three fundamental core values of liberal international relations theory inherent in all strands of liberalism:

• The first principle of liberalism is based upon a progressive and optimistic view of human nature.  Reason and learning is part of the human condition.  While it is also accepted that discord and coercion are necessary in some circumstances, human freedoms have been encouraged by the general condition of peace, prosperity and justice.
• The second principle of liberalism is based upon the fact that although anarchy is a reality the state is an essential actor that makes cooperation is possible.  This cooperation is necessary to maximize total group benefits and mitigate damages.
• The third principle of liberalism is that international relations have been transformed by modernization.  The major phases have included the agriculture revolution, industrial revolution, and scientific revolution.  (Zacher & Matthew, 1995)

Zacher and Matthews describe how these core fundamental values have been developed through years of theoretical debate and developments by such authors as Locke, Voltaire, Rosseau, Kant, and more recently Keohane, Nye, and Hoffman.  It is evident that there are numerous strands of liberalism; the strands range from republican, interdependence, cognitive, sociological, and institutional liberal-‘isms’ (1995, p. 121).  It is worth noting, for Zacher and Matthews, individuals are the primary actors of international relations and when comprised are represented by states which are the most important collective actors.  The interests of these actors are constantly evolving and shaped by domestic and international conditions.

One of the main conclusions that Zacher and Matthew present about liberalism is a correlation exists between democratization and free trade as means of preventing international aggression and war.  Wherein international laws and organizations brought about by democratic actions create an international regime that facilitates commerce between nations; where the mutual interests of nations, upholding principles of free trade, maintain the integrity of the regime (1995, p. 137).  That is the mutual interests of the group maintain peace among group members.  However, the authors do point to the inherent roles of self-interest and power in individual action which in general advocates “prudence” in foreign policy decisions (Ibid, 112).

Charles Kindleberger, also a liberal international relations theorist, was best known for his development of Hegemonic stability theory.  His article “International Public Goods without International Government” was a reflection of the changing nature of international relations theory – beyond the strict traditional dichotomy of realism and liberalism.  The result was sort of cross-pollination of disciplines including political science, economics, sociology and philosophy.  In an aggregating many related factors hegemonic stability theory attempts to explain how and why regimes are established and maintained by looking at a variety of contributing factors.

Kindleberger infers that stability in the international system is possible when clearly defined hegemony exists because it will act as an overarching authority.  A hegemon is best understood as a leading or dominant power (1986, 1).  In the international nation state system a hegemonic power could be considered the United States.  Acting as a hegemonic power, the United States has played a primary role in establishing stability because of the way it has founded, maintained, and regulated a common system that promotes free market principles.

In this way, Kindleberger describes that at the root of hegemonic stability is the notion of providing and sustaining public goods.  A public good is non-excludable and non-rival; where everyone has access to it and consumption does not diminish the availability of the good (Kindleberger, 1986, p. 2).  An optimum example of a public good is a free and open market economy.  Today an open trading system between most all countries is made possible by the standardization of weights and measurements, freedom of the seas, and the protection of property rights – all concepts that have been developed and enforced by hegemonic powers (Discussion, 2010).  For Kindleberger the essential role of the hegemon is to police the ‘free riders’ – those who directly benefit from the public goods but who do not contribute to maximizing the delivery of public goods (1986, p. 13).

In Hegemony in the World Political Economy Robert Keohane clearly defines the parameters of hegemony as the control of resources like raw materials, capital, markets and competitive advantages.  An important observation by Keohane is that important economic issues are often closely correlated to military-security issues of the hegemony.  This explains the military power exercises of the United States and her allies in the protection of commercial oil interests in the Middle East (Keohane, 1999, p. 300).

Although Keohane proposes that a single dominant power creates and maintains order in world politics, his understanding is not limited to the dominance of one state as a sufficient and necessary condition for the development of world order.  This idea permits the waxing and waning of hegemonic power as well as the cooperation of many states in an effort of international stability.  Keohane suggests that a single state with ability and willingness can make and enforce rules of a regime.   The key to this understanding is that willingness of a state is driven by domestic politics (Keohane, 1999, p. 295).  That is hegemonic leadership in international relations are determined in part by domestic conditions which create a demand for cooperation or conflict.

In the chapter “Democracy and Globalization” David Held discusses the idea of a cosmopolitan democracy as both necessary and possible in the globalizing world.  He argues that a shift has occurred in human affairs where we are more inter-connected having overcome spatial distances with fundamental changes in the way we perceive communication, culture, the environment, finance, security and transportation (1998, p. 12).  Overlapping spheres of influence create interest dilemmas that present challenges to the way we think of national sovereignty and boundaries in the international arena.

Held discusses the fundamental issue of constituency in a liberal democracy where consent of the community legitimates government’s actions.  He is right to point out that most forms of democracy exist on a domestic or national level.  For Held, in the case of issues where interests are cross-reaching across national interests, like the ready availability of cheap fertilizers, current forms of democracy do not adequately provide representation for global citizens to direct or have input on decisive actions to promote or uphold those interests.  For the most part, economic forces operate at a global level which cannot be contained or directed by the conventional notion of national governments (Held, 1998, p. 27).

Theoretical Discussion

Applying Zacher and Matthew’s observations of the liberal perspective of international relations theory we can make a few conclusions about Canada’s position on FDI.  The first is that the state should be considered an important actor of international relations; since both federal and sub-federal governments influenced the decision to block the foreign investment.  However, individuals should be considered the primary actors motivating action in the international community.  After all, BHP Billiton is a publicly traded company comprised of the aggregated interests of individuals.  Marius Kloppers is the chief executive officer (CEO) of BHP, he is responsible for driving both attempts to acquire Rio Tinto and Potash Corp; two failed events that cost the company approximately $800 million dollars (MacDonald, 2010).  On the other hand, Bill Doyle, CEO of Potash Corp played a key role influencing shareholders and government officials to act in concert with the rejection of BHP’s offer.  Brad Wall and Stephen Harper were also individuals with government regulatory capacity who impacted the final decision to deter FDI.  Their personal opinions no doubt had a direct impact on blocking BHP’s attempt to gain access to the Canadian market by way of acquisition.

The second observation we can draw from Zacher and Matthews liberal interpretation is that international relations are shaped by self interest and power which results in a constant state of flux.  This is demonstrated by Stephen Harper actively promoting the advancement of free and open market principles; when in fact his administrative decisions display hypocrisy between words and actions.  The control of resources as power is mirrored in Canada’s direct protectionist measures to ensure domestic control of the largest potash mines in the world and a considerable portion of the global fertilizer supply.  It is important to weigh the fact that had BHP acquired Potash Corp the monopoly that may have been created could have had a negative influence on global supply prices – thereby negatively affecting the entire group of potash users.  Canada’s display of prudence of self-interest over group-interests demonstrates that coercive intervention by state actors is at times acceptable to maintain the balance of the system.

Based on Kindlerberger’s assertions of liberalism we can infer that the decision to maintain Canadian interests in Potash Corp indicates the desire to maintain stability by way of a level of hegemonic control over the domestic potash resource.  Canada clearly enjoys the economic benefits of the company’s production over the natural resource.  There is also a net benefit to the global community by providing access to the by-products generated by the company’s operations at a fair market price.  In this way Potash Corp is delivering a modern public good – the seemingly limitless production of a commodity necessary to obtain higher crop yields which in turn sustains a greater number of people on the same amount of arable land.  Since the nation of Canada coincides with the geographic location of a majority of the world’s potash supply it is most likely in the best interests of the Canadian people to maintain some sense of control over the largest producer of such a valuable resource.

Applying Keohane’s conceptions of liberalism to the case at hand it is clear that potash is a valuable resource that is closely linked to food security.  For this reason, Canada has a vested interest in maintaining some level of domestic control over the resource’s means of extraction and production.  The second section of this paper demonstrated that there was as domestic willingness to preserve the integrity of Potash Corp as a Canadian entity from both the provincial and federal levels of government.  The government’s ability to control FDI is vested within the Investment Canada Act and is a tool for ensuring dominance over natural resources like potash.

Applying David Held’s conclusions of liberalism to the case study we find a disconnect in his interpretation of the liberal theoretical framework.  While it is acceptable that potash as a commodity does serve cross-reaching national interests, to argue that there was no constituency on the issue to block the BHP bid to acquire Potash Corp seems unfounded.  In fact the shareholders of Potash Corp had the ability to individually block the sale of their shares to BHP in an attempt to prevent the foreign acquisition.  Furthermore, Canadian citizens can demonstrate their acceptance or rejection of the regime advanced by the Harper government during the next election by choosing to vote or not to vote for the conservative party.  In some context, Held is correct to say that the citizens of Malawi, for example, do not have a voice in the nature of FDI permitted in Canada as was the case of Potash Corp – however, it begs the question of whether they deserve a voice in determining the relative openness or closeness of the Canadian economy to FDI.

Summary

This paper has outlined the nature of the proposed foreign direct investment in the case of BHP Billiton and Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan; the influence of federal, provincial, and individuals on the relative success of the deal; and the theoretical basis for liberal international relations theory.  Based upon the information herein presented it can be concluded that international relations theory does influence and explain the formulation of foreign and domestic policies.

Although Canada’s position on free market principles may seem obscure, the actions by the regulatory agencies were indeed influenced by the goal to preserve Canadian national interests of sovereign control over scarce natural resources.  In the past three decades Canada has been an open market and has advocated the same free market principles.  The Potash Corp case marks the second such intervention by Canadian regulators; this prudence in policy is more generally an exception to the norm.  While it may not be the norm it does mark a significant departure and signals a sense of uncertainty to potential foreign investors.

The ‘net benefit’ test has been criticized on the international stage as being too obscure and subjective to the whims of government self-interest.  The government argues that the proposed FDI did not promise to provide a net benefit because the deal would have hampered the country’s ability to compete in world markets.   Since Potash Corp is geographically based within Canada, due to the location of the mines and existing production facilities, how would ownership by BHP differ than the current structure?  It is important to keep in mind that since Potash Corp is already a public company listed on both the New York and Toronto Stock Exchange there is significant diffusion of ownership interests among a large group of individuals, many of whom are not Canadian.

The international criticism is not unwarranted.  The Harper government is now responsible for the two instances of deterring FDI – MDA in 2008 and Potash Corp in 2010.  For a government that publicly advocates principles of the free market to the world through major forums like the WTO it must ensure some level of consistency at the international level in order to be taken seriously by other economies.  Although the evidence presented herein does demonstrate that Canada has a vested interest in advancing a free market agenda to gain FDI access for Canadian investors.  After all, the Canadian levels of outward FDI have outpaced inward FDI in recent years.

The question remains –should Canada be considered a democratic economic regime given Canada’s most recent example of FDI deterrence based upon the principle of “net benefit” to Canadians that is based upon limited transparency?  The fact is this is the second case of FDI deterrence that is marking the beginning of a trend against foreign acquisitions of priority national industries.  Although it may not be entirely clear how the government reached the decision they do seem to exhibit liberal international relations tendencies in their approach to foreign and domestic policy development.  These tendencies are reasonable cooperation in general while minding the needs for power and self-interest in the long-term.

Bibliography

Bouw, B. (2010, November 14). BHP Withdraws Potash Bid. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from Financial Post: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/bhp-withdraws-potash-bid/article1798568/

CBC. (2008, April 10). Federal Government Blocks Sale of MDA Space Division. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from CBC News: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/10/mdablock.html#ixzz15Iz4386p

Competition Policy Review Panel: Executive Summary. (2008, June). Retrieved November 11, 2010, from Competition Policy Review Panel Report: Compete to Win: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cprp-gepmc.nsf/eng/h_00041.html

Cox, R. W. (2005). A Canadian Dilemma: The United States or the World. International Journal , 60 (3), 667-684.

Discussion, Class. (2010, September – November). Political Science 4110 International Relations Theory. University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB.

Financial Post. (2010, 11 03). Industry Minister’s Official Statement. Retrieved 11 14, 2010, from Financial Post: http://www.financialpost.com/news/Industry+Minister+official+statement/3772991/story.html

Georgopoulos, G. J. (2008). Cross-border mergers and acquisitions: does the exchange rate matter? Some evidence for Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics; , 41 (2), 450-474.

Gilpin, R. (1975). U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation: The Political Economy of Foreign Direct Investment. New York: Basic Books.

Globerman, S., & Shapiro, D. M. (1999). The Impact of Government Policies on Foreign Direct Investment: The Canadian Experience. Journal of International Business Studies , 30 (3), 513-532.

Harper, S. (Performer). (2010, January 10). Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada. World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland.

Hejazi, W., & Pauly, P. (2003). Motivations for FDI and Domestic Capital Formation. Journal of International Business Studies , 34 (3), 282-289.

Held, D. (1998). Democracy and Globalization. In D. Archibugi, D. Held, & M. Kohler, Re-imagining Political Community; Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy (pp. 11-27). Standford University Press.

Hervieux-Payette, C. (2010, October 26). Question Period – 3rd Session, 40th Parliament. (N. A. Kinsella, Ed.) Retrieved November 13, 2010, from Debates of the Senate (Hansard): http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/3/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/059db_2010-10-26-E.htm?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3

Ibbitson, J. (2010, November 15). With Potash bid off table, Clement is free to face fresh controversy. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from The Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/with-potash-bid-off-table-clement-is-free-to-face-fresh-controversy/article1798991/

Industry Canada. (2010, February 6). Investment Canada Act – Thresholds. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from Indsutry Canada: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ica-lic.nsf/eng/h_lk00050.html

Jasinski, S. M. (January 2010). Mineral Commodity Summaries – POTASH. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Survey.

Jensen, N. T. (2003). Democratic Governance and Multinational Corporations: Political Regimes and Inflows ofForeign Direct Investment. International Organization , 57 (3), 587-616.

Keenan, R. (2010, November 15). BHP’s Three Failed Deals Won’t Stop Kloppers’ Pursuit of M&A. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-15/bhp-s-three-failed-deals-won-t-stop-kloppers-pursuit-of-m-a.html

Keenan, R., & Behrmann, E. (2010, August 12). BHP Billiton Makes Hostile $40 Billion Bid for Potash. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-17/potash-corp-board-rejects-130-a-share-takeover-offer-from-bhp-billiton.html

Keohane, R. O. (1999). Hegemony in the World Political Economy. International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues , 295-307.

Kindleberger, C. (1986). International Public Goods without International Government. The American Economic Review , 76 (1), 1-13.

Koven, P. (2010, October 21). Saskatchewan Premier rails against Potash Play. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from Financial Post: http://www.financialpost.com/Saskatchewan+rejects+Potash/3706576/story.html

MacDonald, A. (2010, November 17). BHP Spent Nearly $1 Billion on Failed Deals — Should Investors Worry? Retrieved November 21, 2010, from The Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2010/11/17/bhp-spent-nearly-1-billion-on-failed-deals-should-investors-worry/

Potash Corp. (2010). 5 Ws and an H About Potash Corp. Retrieved 11 11, 2010, from Potash Corp: http://www.potashcorp.com/media/POT_5Ws_brochure.pdf

Potash Corp. (2010). History. Retrieved 11 11, 2010, from Potash Corp: http://www.potashcorp.com/about/history/

Potash Corp. (2010, August 23). POTASHCORP BOARD OF DIRECTORS REJECTS BHP BILLITON’S UNSOLICITED OFFER. Retrieved November 13, 2010, from Potash Corp: http://www.potashcorp.com/stakeholder_communications/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/POT_PotashCorp_Rejects_BHP_Billitons_Unsolicited_Offer.pdf

PotashCorp. (2010, 11 03). PotashCorp – Update: BHP Bid. Retrieved 11 06, 2010, from Potash Corp: http://www.potashcorp.com/stakeholder_communications/2010/11/03/1234/

Reuters. (2010, September 2). Factbox: Potash Supply and Demand. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68063W20100902

The Economist – Business Section. (2008, November 27). Mining – Kloppers Clipped, BHPBilliton ends its pursuit of Rio Tinto. The Economist .

The Economist. (2010, November 4). Not so fast, the government puts the kibosh on a bid for PotashCorp. Retrieved November 13, 2010, from The Economist: November

Zacher, M. W., & Matthew, R. A. (1995). Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands. In C. W. Kegley (Ed.), Controversies in International Relations Theory. Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge,. New York: St. Martins Press.

http://www.google.com/reader/shared/projectgoodman

Have a listen to the selection of songs put together by all the members of the seminar class – there is a pretty diverse selection of music.

Playlist

1.      “For Good” (words and music by Stephen Schwartz: from the musical “Wicked”)

2.      “Friend Like This” by Paul Brandt

3.      “Friends Theme Song” by The Rembrandts

4.      “One Good Friend” by George Canyon

5.      “He Ain’t Heavy” by The Hollies

6.      “You’ve Got a Friend” by James Taylor

7.      “Bro Hymn Tribute” by  Pennywise

8.      “Friend of the Night” by  Mogwai

9.      “To Find a Friend” by Tom Petty

10.  “You’re my best friend” by Don Williams

11. ” Sorry, Dudes. My Bad.” by Say Anything

12.  “My Old Friend” by Tim McGraw

13.  “You’ve Got A Friend In Me Lyrics” by Randy Newman

14.  “Friends Will Be Friends” by Queen

15.  “Bridge Over Troubled Water” by P. Simon

16.  “Fall Back Down” by RANCID

17.  “I’ll Follow You Into The Dark” by Death Cab For Cutie

18.  “Lithium” by Nirvana

19.  “I’ll Be Your Mirror” by Velvet Underground

20.  “I See a Darkness” by Johnny Cash and Will Oldham

—

You can tune into CKXU

88.3FM
or
99.7 Cable FM
or
Channel 868 on Telus TV
or
livestream @ www.ckxu.com

Curtis Matwychuk-Goodman

—

Merchant Kings: When Companies Ruled the World, 1600-1900 is an interesting historical narrative of the world’s earliest global trading empires.  Stephen R. Bown examines the tales of six merchant adventurers, representing both private and public interests, in their quest to develop, monopolize and control far-flung economies.  This book provides as excellent resource for anyone interested in the early developments of: monopolies, corporations, international trade, and foreign policy.  In reviewing this book criterion include: background of the author; overall content; organization; and personal reflections.  In brief, this book is a fascinating read, often tedious in background details, but an excellent resource for better understanding issues of colonialism and the related importance of leadership in developing a functional economy and society.

Author Stephen R. Bown, is an avid writer of the history of science and exploration.  Born in Ottawa, Canada he is a graduate from the University of Alberta.  In the Merchant Kings Bown weaves an excellent narrative with a uniquely broad perspective that flushes out the nature of early merchant companies.  The author has published numerous other historical-novel books including: Sightseers and Scholars: Scientific Travelers in the Golden Age of Natural History and Scurvy: How a Surgeon, a Mariner, and a Gentleman Solved the Greatest Medical Mystery of the Age of Sail.  These books have become internationally acclaimed and established the author as bestselling by the Globe and Mail in 2004.  Merchant Kings was released in 2009 in Canada by Douglas & McIntyre Publishers.  According to his personal website, Bown is married with two young children and while writing the book they resided in Canmore, Alberta, Canada.  

In Merchant Kings Bown explores the early efforts of global explorers who would become the foundation for future colonial imperial forces.  Bown describes the period between 1600 and 1900 as the Age of Heroic Commerce.  The book is divided between six somewhat intertwined tales of men from Europe who were financed by private company charters and empowered by national governments.  Each national government would bestow monopoly privilege upon the companies which would enable them to become “to big to fail.”  The six particular companies described in the book are explained through the lens of understanding the leaders who would enforce the global monopolies of each respective company.  These are:

• the Dutch East India Company led by Jan Pierterszoon Coen;
• the Dutch West India Company led by Pieter Stuyvesant;
• the English East India Company led by Sir Robert Clive;
• the Russian American Company led by Aleksandr Baranov;
• the Hudson’s Bay Company led by Sir George Simpson; and
• the British South Africa Company led by Cecil John Rhodes.  

The discussion of each of these early companies and their leaders are split into separate chapters which describes the local conditions that would create opportunities prime for each of the leader’s success.  Each company is first explained as the unofficial agents of European colonial expansion due to their economic, military and social powers.  It becomes obvious that a turning point in the world occurred when the private interests of each country managed to strategically organize capital and ruthless merchant adventurer-leaders to seize new economies in distant lands.  Each of these new economies was based on the expanding desire for exotic goods from the farthest reaches of the world at that time. 

The products that were not locally available in Europe like cotton, furs, saltpetre (for gunpowder), silk and spices motivated the development of militarily enforced supply lines.  The demand for the products produced unparalleled profits which were necessary to preserve – for the sake of shareholders and eventually national security. During this time period large expensive sailing fleets were the only mode of transportation that could connect the distant cargoes with the demanding markets.  The inherently expensive nature of such endeavors required substantive national government support – whereby in exchange for monopoly privilege of the national market the company would ensure secure and steady incoming supply of cargoes.

Bown focuses on the personalities of the company leaders in a generalist manner.  He does not delve into exact trade statistics but instead focuses on the organizational culture of each monopoly company.  This provides for a focus on chronological events and generally established facts of the time.  A timeline of events discussed is supplied at the end of the book; photos and maps are provided throughout the book giving a better context to the events being described.  Bown explores and recapitulates a myriad of primary and secondary sources dating back to 1896; synthesizing over seventy-five sources his description of the events that transpired are fascinating and gripping.

In exploring the behavior of these companies Bown uncovers the close-knit ties of the merchant class with the early development of national foreign policy objectives.  Each company leader’s story is presented in a fashion that equates them with “celebrated generals and monarchs.”  The evidence Bown offers points to a common thread among the six stories – that each company began to unravel as they further exploited their monopolistic powers.  They attempted to tyrannically rule over their employees and subjugate native populations.  They effectively took advantage of the unbridled privileges bestowed as a reward for the unbalanced flow of profits to company shareholders.  He points out that most of the shareholders were unaware of their companies’ tactics in for obtaining exceedingly generous dividends from distant lands.  The eventual demise of the respective companies came about due to the substantial overhead cost associated with extracting profits; expenses were in the form of local services for the merchant colonies and the security forces required fending off attacks from rival companies.

Bown neatly focuses on the justification for the imperialism of these early companies.  “Britain’s trade and economy were linked through colonies around the world… and they needed common goals and objectives to strengthen their ties.  Nationalism and racism were linked with imperialism to justify the continued expansion and the governance of non-English-speaking peoples.”  The bloody and violent instances of rebellion by local populations fighting against subjugation were often used to construct false perceptions of the foreign cultures as being barbaric and requiring “civilization.”  The ‘white man’s burden’ was a superiority complex that would enable the annexation of lands, with independent history and traditions, under new authority structures that were remote and profit-driven with no care for local government structures. 

The evidence of the cultural disconnect between the homeland and quasi-colonial lands is best described in the comparison of the democratic and civil political culture of the Netherlands with that of the despotically-ruled New Netherlands trading posts.  The author purports that the Dutch Golden Age was morally bi-polar.  The relative prosperity of the Netherlands came at the expense of distant cultures and ways of life.   In this way the strictly commercial origins of each company transformed to shape social and political structures of society – in this particular case that of Manhattan in what is now modern day New York.  In this way the author warns of the “current trends of globalization: the greater the distance between the product and the consumer the less opportunity for consumers to oversee production.” 

Bown offers some explanations for why the configuration of the companies’ enabled impious operations.  The communications ability during the Age of Heroic Commerce limited frequent exchanges of directives from the home country to the foreign operating entities.  Regular communications were at best twice a year – which left the operations under the strict control of the appointed leader to do as they wished.  Furthermore, the lack of regulatory authority in the foreign lands did not limit the extent of the companies’ rule.  To put it simply, there was too much money to be made and luxury derived by the importing of exotic goods from these unknown lands to begin to question its process of delivery.  In the case of saltpetre, the main ingredient for gunpowder, uninterrupted supply was necessary from India to England to ensure military superiority over lesser nations thereby reinforcing the English Empire. 

Merchant Kings is an excellent read for a few reasons.  The first is that the overall structure of the book boosts Bown’s offering of a clear central thesis early in the book.  The main point of the book is that the six leaders changed and shaped history in much the same way as “celebrated military generals, political leaders and technological innovators did.”  Comprised of six separate case studies Bown adds his commentary in bookending the discussion with a short introduction and epilogue.  There are numerous case examples of the leaders’ actions and how they led to the creation of empires like the Dutch, British and Russians. The reader is left with the impression these particular company leaders were larger than life ruthless adventurers who were the equivalent of Kings – beholden to no authority in the new world. 

The second reason this is an excellent book rests in the fact that it provides the first ever summary of each six leaders in one single account.  Bown claims this is the first time all six men are considered together in this way.  In providing evidence for his thesis the reader is left wanting more details – but Bown neatly summarizes a three-hundred year time period in less than as many pages. 

The third reason Merchant Kings is a worthy read is the parallels that Bown weaves – connecting early national governments with companies of their time and modern day state governments and transnational corporations.  Bown questions the reader, “Western societies strive for a separation of religion and the state, but what ought to be the relationship between commercial enterprise and the state?”  He describes the companies as “effectively a state within a state;” pointing to the power to wage war and command armies, acquire territory, or engage in diplomatic efforts with foreign sovereign powers.  These early companies were responsible factors for many of the continued conflicts between nations – like the Spanish Armada, the Anglo-Dutch War, and the Seven Years’ War – events that would define the balance of power for the following centuries.  In this way Bown explains that trade was a main factor in the shaping of international relations during this age. Furthermore Bown excellently unites the leadership of the Merchant Kings with the relative success of each company and their country. 

The fundamental problem with the book is its limited discussion of the theoretical framework of the age.  More effort could have been directed towards the international relations theories of the day.  This could have been achieved by a short discussion of mercantilist and realist principles that were being theorized and written about.  The distinction is made early on in the book that the actions of the Merchant Kings were not the same as the capitalist free-market thinking promoted by Adam Smith, yet there is no substantive discussion of why.  By omitting the structured arguments that condoned the companies’ actions during their time the readers are left to fill in the gap of why events unfolded as they did.  The author points to the seven deadly sins, primary to each human, as a starting point in understanding the development of the Merchant Kings empires.

Another fundamental problem with the book is that it leaves the reader wanting more.  For this reason, the sub-title of the book should have instead been written as “When Companies Ruled the World, Volume 1 – 1600-1900” as it would have provided opportunity to write a follow-up novel “When Companies Ruled the World, Volume 2 – 1900-2000.”  The author could have easily divided this book into more than one volume that would have provided a more in-depth examination of the events surrounding the Merchant Kings.

The Merchant Kings is an enjoyable and fascinating read.  It examines the unique period of history where the line blurred between trading entities and sovereign entities.  In today’s world this distinction seems to be clearly defined – where corporate powers are beholden to national regulatory mechanisms and evermore so international regulatory mechanisms.  However, Bown leaves the reader wondering if anything has actually changed.  Today there are companies with profits greater than the national gross-domestic product of many nation states; today there are corporations that operate beyond the effective control of any regulatory mechanism; and today there are companies that are deemed essential to national security objectives that they are too big to fail and are effectively backed by the state. 

The book provides opportunity for reflection as to what extent should limits be placed on companies operating in foreign jurisdictions?  How can we effectively regulate, monitor, and control private entities to the best interest of all of humanity while balancing the need for generating profits?  Finally, what are the responsibilities of shareholders in tempering company actions to ensure they are morally and socially correct?

—

Merchant Kings
When Companies Ruled the World, 1600-1900

Stephen R. Bown

290 Pages

© 2009

Douglas &McIntyre Publishers Inc.

ISBN: 978-1-55365-342-4

Curtis Matwychuk-Goodman

—
This paper will explore international relations (IR) theory by focusing on two specific frameworks that demonstrate the duality of the approach to the discipline.  In comparing and contrasting the particulars of both the positivist and post positivist framework it will become clear what the primary contentions of each are.  This will be useful because it addresses a key nature of the development of IR theory – that the inherent contentions of each side of the debate enrich our understanding of IR theory.  The fundamentals of each side of the debate are rooted in addressing the basis of knowledge and the advancement of intellectual thought.  The ideal would be to realize and understand the nature of humanity or perhaps more specifically, the nature of anarchy among the relations of human affairs.

This paper will first delineate the nature of IR theory.  It will then explore the major contentions of both the positivist and post-positivist approaches to IR theory.  Each perspective will become clearer.  The foundations of each approach to knowledge development will be articulated by examining the intellectual works of the following:

After a brief outlay of the positivist framework, followed by the post-positivist, the respective approaches to IR theory will be discussed in their relative strengths and weaknesses to each other.  This paper will establish the assertion that both frameworks contribute to the richness of IR theory development.  Furthermore, this paper seeks to provide answers to how knowledge is created in IR theory and why this matters for citizens of the world.

Background on IR Theory – the Major Contentions

First let us understand – what is international relations (IR) theory?  A collective body of knowledge created over years of intellectual discourse on the modern development of world events pertaining to human interactions.  The intellectual developments are often a reflection of current happenings – whether social, political, or economic; which are to some degree compared and contrasted to past interpretations of similar past historical events.

The international relations theory discipline has been described as being based upon 1) rigorous study of clear and distinct objects – like nation-states or multilateral institutions or particular documented occurrences and outcomes in history; and 2) rooted in common agreement, or disagreement, on particular definitions of IR terms and concepts.  Over the course of intellectual history commonalities have become inevitable through a constant reproduction of consensus on exactly what the central issues of humanity are in the international realm.

Thucydides, Plato, Grotius, Kant, Smith and Marx are but a few names that may come to mind when thinking of established names in the early development of IR theory.  These intellectuals characterized the essence of their generation of thought.  The big names, who were no doubt fortunate in sources of funding and publishers.

As the name implies, international relations (IR) theory is centrally involved with affairs of nations.  Dialectic occurs among IR theorists – a debate over the rightness of ideas in how nations act or behave towards each other and the corresponding rationale behind why such actions occur.  Ultimately for intellectuals the drive of IR theory is to produce knowledge that dominates the historical record.  The ultimate recognition is to be established throughout history as having the best articulated ‘original’ thought.

Ole Weaver discusses the importance of fundamental debates in the development of IR theory.  One of the most recent debates among IR theorists has included the positivists and post-positivists.  More specifically this could be broken down to a debate over the framework of knowledge.  Even more specifically this could be broken down to debates between realists and liberals; neorealists and neoliberals; or rationalists and reflectivists.  These theoretical frameworks develop knowledge that is in some ways conflicting, but in other ways helps to build consensus of what the established conditions of humanity seem to be in regards to IR.

The primary contentions of the debate between positivism and post-positivism are: How should anarchy be managed? Can we predict future actions based on past actions?  Perhaps more correctly, are humans capable of learning and developing together?  Are there universal principles that bind human interactions?  Are there only absolute or relative gains in this world – or both?  Who are the actors in international affairs – the state, the individual, the corporation, the sovereign wealth fund, or some other entity?  More importantly, how should knowledge pertaining to IR be organized and structured in order to help humanity better understand its existence together?

Let us now look at the specifics of each debate by identifying a few major approaches within each the positivist or post-positivist framework.

Positivist Framework

Positivism dominated the IR theory debate for a considerable part of the twentieth-century.  The positivist approach to research is based upon empirical findings, founded upon the science of observable facts.  This naturally provides a basis for scrutiny by other researchers and intellects.  Two threads of IR theory connected to the positivist side of the debate include realism and neo-realism.  These can be further delineated by specificity in the debate between offensive realism or defensive realism; and regime theory or complex interdependence theory.

John Mearsheimer is connected to the structural realist approach to IR theory.  Also known as offensive realism or neo-realism, this strand of IR theory views the world as offering absolute gains, wherein nations gain at the expense of others.  Mearsheimer’s article “The False Promises of International Institutions” (1994) explains that the quest for power is the only structure or ordering principle in an anarchic system.  His observations are of a world where the dominant nations spend up to one half of their gross domestic product on military and defensive strategies.  The fundamentals of his contention is clear – kill or be killed.  This adequately sums up Mearsheimer’s offensive realist approach within the positivist framework.  Drawing on relevant historical examples Mearsheimer explains a state must adequately fortify its own economic, military and political position in order to protect and maintain the prominence of their position within the global hierarchy.

His approach is positivist because of his focus on empiricism.  In his article “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War” he clearly delineates the variables of his focus.  These variables are then used to make predictions as to why a ‘Long peace’ ensued during the Cold War and what this could possibly mean for the future of Europe.  Isolating three key factors: 1) the bi-polar nature of the conflict, capitalism versus communism or USA versus USSR, was easier to manage than the relatively unordered multi-polar world that existed pre-WWI; 2) equal amounts of power balance each other; 3) the proliferation of nuclear weapons makes the cost of war excessively high and will therefore decrease the potential for its occurrence.  Central to this realist approach is the need for power in the international arena.

This position is, for the most part, supported by Kenneth Waltz a prominent defensive realist.  Although Waltz would argue that nations wish to gain and maintain power there is a threshold to exactly how much power is enough.  His article “The Stability of a Bipolar World” (2006) explicates that a nation’s attempt to maximize its own power will be punished by gaining too much power.  In the cases of Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany or the USSR, these nations overextended natural abilities in maintaining the presence of power in the international arena to the point that they eventually imploded under their own efforts.  However, nations must balance power internally (building national capabilities) and externally (coalitions with other nations) to keep a check on rival national powers.  The fundamental problem of the balance remains situated on the issue of relative gains among states – where no nation wants to forgo their share, especially if it will tilt the balance of power out of their favour.

Connected to this realist approach is Stephen Krasner who is grouped with the regime theorists.  Principles and norms are the defining characteristics of regimes – or patterns of human interaction.  States are the primary actors, participating in regimes through associations and structural agreements like NATO or GATT (now the WTO), where rules and procedures are created by common principles and norms.  These are established through the relative power and influence of nations who interact in methods of cooperation in the hope of attaining specific policy outcomes favourable to their own self-interest.  In the case of NATO – military protection and assistance; in the case of the WTO – secure and open trading markets.  Over time these principles guide the interactions of nations.  Although the habit of such actions may produce favourable results there is no guarantee that the state will continue to engage in the activity due to the pervasive nature of anarchy.

For Kenneth Oye the concepts of game theory best describe IR in what is known as complex interdependence.  The article “Mitigation of Anarchy – the Conditions of Cooperation in World Politics” discusses anarchy as an inherent condition of reality.  Wherein cooperation sometimes emerges; but cooperation is not guaranteed because of individual strategies and abilities to alter circumstances and thus payouts.  The differentiation between outcomes depends on whether the game is single-play or iterated.  In the case of iteration states expect to work together continuously into the future and the payoff structure is not likely to change much over time.  The outcomes of these games are diminished for Oye as the number of actors participating increases.  In the case of just a few parties the outcomes are usually more significant and ad hoc in nature; whereas consensus decreases in likelihood as the number of participating parties increases.

In the case of complex interdependence there are three fundamental characteristics.  The first is there are multiple channels between states both politically and economically.  The second is that there is no clearly defined hierarchy of issues.  And the third being that military force lessens with less conflict – iteration of cooperation becomes habit over conflict.  These clearly defined variables provide a methodological approach to the study of IR theory.  The relationships of interdependence will shed light on the vulnerability or sensitivity of states to other states.  An important development in this argument is the possibility of cooperation – which will be discussed at greater lengths and greater importance by the post-positivists.

Overall, positivism presents a neatly informed position in the IR theory discipline.  It is a state centric approach; where the nation state is the primary actor of international relations.  Yet, positivists are willing to accept the influence and existence of other actors to varying degrees.  Power is a key element for the positivist approach.  The structure of the international system is based up on the inherent nature of anarchy; as no overarching authority exists and power prevails.  While cooperation may be possible among nation states, in any event anarchy is likely to prevail because absolute gains in the international arena outweigh relative gains.  And perhaps most importantly to the positivist approach is that any intellectual contention should be thoroughly documented with clearly defined terms, concepts and well-document occurrences of history.

Post Positivist Framework

For much of the twentieth century universities from the United States dominated the agenda of IR theory.  Ivy League schools were primary drivers of intellectual study and therefore the intellectual foundation for the United States’ international agenda or foreign policy.  This is demonstrated by the successive waves of intellectual time periods influenced by global events.  The competition of ideas driven by Cold War politics tended to become narrowly defined, focusing on easily measureable variables and difficult to refute theoretical principles.  By the 1980s post-positivist or critical or post-modern theories became a growing trend in IR intellectual circles.

The post-positivist side of the IR theory equation is a response to the obvious deficiencies of the positivist approach.  Post-positivism developed through   a tide of consensus developed over the lack of values and ethical questioning in the theoretical examination of international relations offered by positivism.  Although, by no means is the inclusion of values and ethics in the philosophy of IR theory a new concept.  However, the viewpoint was not adequately represented or given much thought in meaningful or mainstream circles of IR theory.

As world issues evolved over time, an awareness of the greater impact of actions beyond issues of the state and security came into focus as more and more areas were studied.  These post-positivist approaches address a variety of issues ranging from the environment, human rights and gender equality to name a few.

The study of human morals, values and ethical foundations are not typically empirically testable.  This is fundamentally at odds with the positivist approach that requires factual observations of the laws of nature.  To demonstrate understanding of the source of values and the scope of obligation of one person to another is prone to generalizations and normative considerations.

For post-positivists values are an observable fact of study.  Where 1) norms matter in world politics; 2) the relativity of these values affects issues of inclusion in the international processes and outcomes; 3) purposeful action is morally bound – which makes any intention either good or bad.  The post-positivist framework provides a basis for which to take our current understanding of the world and apply human principles as a basis to improve the human condition.

The normative approach will be the first area of focus for this paper in the post-positivist framework.  Intellectuals like Charles Beitz argue that the primary actors in IR are the state and multinational corporations.  Power is based upon inequality.  Humans are interdependent on each other.  Cooperation is possible.  However, the very idea of state sovereignty rejects the idea that economic interdependence will transcend the world community to a single moral order.  That is, the traditional constraints of IR theory understanding of the state limit the transcendence of humanity to some degree.

For Beitz economic inequality is central to the disparity between nations.  It is because of this inequality that Kant’s idea of a federation of states would not work initially for Beitz.  However, by utilizing a more cosmopolitan approach he attempts to bring social liberalism to the forefront of the IR debate.  Whereby, if nations were economically equal then cooperation would be more likely between nations.  Beitz was labeled as a critical theorist largely due to the fact the he was not welcome in the intellectual circle during the time of publication – which was characterized by intense scrutiny of the Neo-Neo debate.  Beitz closely resembles a normative liberal approach to IR theory – which is best described within the post-positivist framework,

David Held, in “Democracy and Globalization” (1998) discusses the idea of a cosmopolitan democracy as both a necessary and possible in the globalizing world.  He argues that a shift has occurred in human affairs where we are more inter-connected having overcome spatial distances with fundamental changes in the way we perceive communication, culture, the environment, finance, security and transportation.  This has created overlapping spheres of influence involved in “interest dilemmas” that challenge the traditional concept of sovereignty and boundaries of nations.

In this way, Held addresses the issue of constituency in modern democracies.  Consent is a primary factor in legitimizing actions by nations – but in most cases there is no formal mode for citizens of the global community to provide input into the actions of nations at the international level.  In the case of issues that have interests that cross-reach national interests how can citizens be guaranteed input in order to promote or uphold their interests? Once humans have effectively addressed the nature of constituency then internationals relations will be legitimized as democratic in nature – something that ought to occur.  Held exemplifies post-positivist assumptions for providing a guideline to improve the human condition as well as opening the debate to be inclusive of more than just state actors as the primary players in international relations.

Dependency theorist Peter Gourevitch describes the importance of domestic politics in the study of IR.  In this say he connects the importance of both the market and the state at a domestic level with the related importance at the international level.  He raises the importance of the people and local issues as having impact on international affairs; to an equal degree that international affairs influence these variables in some fashion.

He articulates a revised complex interdependency theory – where a distinction between strong and weak states is not just explained by the relative strength of wealthy Northern nations with that of weaker or not as prosperous Southern nations.  The issue of security results in coalitions and special arrangements in each country’s foreign relations is a central theme that connects nations to each other.  Which builds the basis of IR study beyond the original conception of complex interdependency; this exemplifies the ongoing debate within IR theory.

Gourevitch presents a helpful viewpoint that defines a trend in IR theory to be primarily focuses on the international level.  Security issues affect the relative autonomy of states; the autonomy of the state is largely correlated to the fundamental economic prospects of the state.  Domestic factors like political, social and geographic endowment shape the way nations engage with each other.  Therefore domestic and economic issues should be primarily focused on in the study of IR theory.

For Michael Walzer state sovereignty is very important to determine the just or unjust nature of war.  He declares that war is just when 1) sovereignty is violated, and 2) in defense of human rights.  The fact Walzer outlines criteria for moral correctness provides evidence that this approach is post-positivist.  Walzer’s communitarian perspective rests on state sovereignty and state rights.

Walzer’s assertions are that states are the most important actors in international society.  That laws and norms are established to protect state rights and sovereignty.  Wherein, the rights of individuals propel and legitimate the obligation of the state within the international community.  Any threat to sovereignty should be treated as a criminal act – whereby there exists two appropriate responses which are: unilateral protection or a defensive coalition against the aggressor.  In any event, nothing but aggression justifies aggression.  And in the case of aggression, it is just to punish the aggressor.

Walzer’s six criteria of a just war provide a normative approach to IR theory.  It provides adequate guidelines for nations to act and react within the international community.  It provides an outline of what is morally correct and how nations out to act.

The post-positivist side of the IR theory debate is not as neatly summarized as the positivist approach.  Not included in this debate were the fringe post-positivist approaches like feminism, reconstructivism, or radicalism.  Instead this demonstrated the common elements among post-positivists that are: Cooperation is possible because relative gains are acceptable.  This means that in some instances a nation may have to submit to the will of international factors because of the greater good.  However, state sovereignty is critical to understanding IR theory.  The sovereignty of a nation is influenced by many factors and actors who have proven to be important including: the nation state, individuals, multinational corporations, private interest and non-governmental organizations to name a few.  In this way, domestic issues are just as important as international issues since both respectively shape the other.  The most obvious distinction of post-positivism is that there are universal principles or norms that out to be upheld – like the instance of just war.  That is, IR theory is able to be prescriptive in nature thereby providing a dialogue for betterment.

Relative Strengths and Weaknesses of Each Framework

The positivist framework of the IR theory is particularly useful for a number of reasons general structure of the framework makes it essential to quantify and establish evidence proving specific related outcomes.  In this way positivism is difficult to argue because it is factual in nature.  Furthermore the general construct of the positivist framework uses reinforcing language to imply to the reader the positivist framework accurately describes the way things are.  The use of language like positivism or realism to describe the theory created a typology of correctness.

The positivist framework falls short because it primarily focuses on the state and issues of security.  This leaves the theory unable to answer the bigger questions of human existence.  Instead positivism typically is a descriptive account of human occurrences limited by the level of analysis of the framework.  The limited focus of positivism excludes other disciplinary focuses like economics, sociology, and anthropology.

The post-positivist approach is useful since it expands the debate of IR theory beyond facts to include ethics, morals and values.  In this way post-positivist theory addresses real issues facing humanity.  These include the environment, human rights and gender issues.  In doing so, post-positivism attempts to provide a road map to making better IR decisions.  It recognizes that there are multitudes of actors involved in IR – beyond just states influencing outcomes as in the positivist approach

The post-positive approach, however, is not as unified because it attempts to utilize a multitude of factors as variables.  In nature, post-positivism includes numerous different variables which become difficult to keep track of and decisively correlates occurrences among them.   In this way post-positivism is prone to generalizations and is difficult to prove because it is subjective in nature.  Similarly, this framework tends to rely on the state as the primary actor for effecting change in international relations – which is contrary to a fundamental assumption post-positivism.

Discussion – Which Framework holds the most Promise?

It is important to recognize these intellectuals presented herein are among the numerous intellectuals who have been a fragment in the dialectic of human thought.  “We stand on the shoulders of giants,” is one way to understand how theory develops theory.  In this way, theory is constantly revised or reinvented with each new publication.

The drive to create knowledge is defined by the available research opportunities and potential for disseminating ideas for interpretation ad application in the international community.  It is important to understand the access to funding and publishing as a primary driver of intellectual thought patterns.  Domination of the debate exists where funding is available to advance a “side” of the debate in the intellectual community with any meaningful effect.

The fact is IR theory has traditionally been dominant in American universities who were able to develop rigorously because of the availability of government funding sources and domination in the publishing of IR literature.  The nature of governments is to produce scientific backing to justify political support for any given course of action.  The positivist framework provided empirical evidence that was difficult to refute in the face of scrutiny, thereby backing policy decisions.  Therefore positivism tended to dominate the base of knowledge in IR theory development.

However, the rise of different trends of thought presented challenges to the way knowledge was being constructed by the positivist framework.  This is reflected in the emergence of greater post-positivist ways of understanding the world.  While the fundamentals of each side are mutually common there are distinctions to the main questions of IR theory: How should anarchy be managed?  Can we predict future actions based on past actions?  Are there universal principles that bind human interactions?  Are there only absolute or relative gains in this world – or both?  Who are the actors in international affairs?  While attempting to provide explanation for these questions leads to the creation of more questions by the IR discipline.

As intellectuals from each framework present their argument it builds a body of IR knowledge that needs to be organized so it is accessible in and of itself, as theory should be.  For positivists the focus is on knowledge is tidy: based on empiricism, modeling, causal relations and the relevance of history.  For post-positivists the focus is on incorporating many IR cases or variables of study to demonstrate the progressive nature of humanity and providing a not-as unified framework to understand international relations.

The structure of knowledge that each side of the debate presents enriches the overall understanding of international relations theory as a discipline.  By labeling the effective framework, or approach to knowledge intellectuals endeavor upon provides structure to the discipline.  In essence it becomes more accessible.  However, these labels also serve to limit the development of new varieties of thought.  By placing labels and typifying the knowledge as it is presented creates preconceived understandings that may cause one to overlook the importance of the actual knowledge.

The function of this practice is most likely rooted in the politicization of knowledge.  The adage goes “knowledge is power.”  Control seems to be rooted in the production, reproduction and dissemination of social knowledge as it creates our common awareness.  It is for this reason that IR theory must remain open and accessible to all forms of knowledge creation.  The ideal, as Waever points to, would be for the discipline to have relevance through theory – where circumstances shift on a daily basis and theory attempts to provide explanation.

IR theory will no doubt continue to evolve over time.  The future remains unknown but that will not prevent the systematic attempts to make predictions based on the historical record or to guide the course of human actions by providing the outlay for framing our understanding of the world.  Which framework, positivism or post-positivism, provides the most hope for our future understanding of international relations?  Both will be important because they provide similar yet differing ways of analyzing and interpreting our world.

* * *

The music in her ears was the perfect accompaniment for the raindrops rolling down the window to her right, just inches from her face. Staring out from the moving train car, she could see her reflection, transparently floating above the passing landscape. David Gray was singing in her ear about empty pictures frames, while the individual drops splashed on the other side of the glass, sliding down and merging with others into streams, which in turn became pools before they overflowed.

Having boarded the train five hours ago, Carissa was now resigned to her fate. The idea of drastic life change had settled in as reality, and she sat silently, lost in thoughts about what to do next; where to go from here. Her own reflection was suddenly blocked; her eyes distracted then focusing on a dark moving shape at the back of the train car, still a reflection – but an interesting one. Not daring to tear her eyes away, Clarissa watched as the indistinct shape became a young man, shaking off a wet umbrella as he walked down the aisle, coming nearer. He passed in front of her row and their eyes met briefly in the glass. He settled into the seat facing hers. “Oh god. Here we go,” Clarissa thought. “Another horny weirdo.”

* * *

‘God, it’s really coming down out there,’ Nick thought as he tried to ignore the dampness that had crept into his pants from the rain, cold legs and a sticky crotch. As he walked down the aisle, he raised his head, noticing the emptiness of the train, before noticing the beautiful woman he was just about to pass. He noticed that she was staring out the window, so he continued past her and sat down in the next one, across the aisle from her but still able to be looking at her.
“Now I just need some kind of conversation starter to break the silence,” he thought his mind racing for a conversation topic to strike a casual acquaintance. She had yet to look at him, but he could still see her pale reflection in the glass. Their eyes locked in the glass for a second time and he blurted out, “so, where are you going?” He had second thoughts about it the minute it escaped his lips, realizing he had not even introduced himself. In fact, she looked mesmerized by the passing hillsides and power lines.

* * *

She turned her head away from the window and towards him. A suspicious look in her eye made it obvious she did not appreciate the effort. “Are you talking to me?” Carissa asked as she sized him up for the first real time.

“Uh-h yea, I guess so, since in case you didn’t notice, there’s no one else here. We are practically the only one in this car.” Richard replied. “My name is Richard, but my friends call me Nick for some reason, and I’m heading up to Thunder Bay. You don’t need to be worried.”

She hesitated before speaking, sizing him up. After all, she thought defensively. “He could be a secret agent or some stalker-rapist like from Law and Order on TV. He did have kind of a cute dimple, she thought, and a really shiny watch. “My name is Charlotte” Carissa lied, thinking ‘Why not get started on the right foot. To him, I can be whomever I want and he will never know about any of that other shit, that past life. I could leave that all behind and start over; no more threats, no cheating glances, no more never-ending frustrations.’

* * *

‘She doesn’t seem very happy,’ Nick thought, while admiring the ringlets in her hair. They looked natural, bouncy and… wow. He realized he was truly distracted, while he watched as she raised her left hand and pulled an ear bud headphone from her ear. “At last,” he thought, “a crack in the armor and an opening moment.”

“What are you listening to?” he asked, thinking it a good question; open ended with no room for yes or no answers, effectively leaving the conversational ball in her court.

* * *

“Well…” Carissa started, with a strange mischievous look in her eye. “I guess I’m listening to you now. I was listening to David Gray – a guy from England,” she sniped grinning mischievously. “I was listening to David Gray. He’s mellow,” she trailed off. “I was daydreaming.”

“David Gray eh,” Nick said, “kicking himself for sounding so…. Canadian. “I’ve never heard of him but he sounds appropriate for a miserable day like this. I think I still have water in my ear,” he added, putting a finger in his ear to emphasize the grievance.

She made direct eye contact and her smirk disappeared, replaced by that stern look that her reflection has displayed minutes earlier. “I like the rain,” she said slowly. “It washes everything away – makes it all fresh and new, washes all the dirt away. And it smells good afterwards, I think.” Blushing slightly, as though she had revealed something sacred, she glanced away and adjusted the strap of the bag she was clinging to. The train suddenly began to slow; an intense de-celeration occurring. The whole train car gyrated with a rhythm, and the piercing squeal of brakes was almost overpowering. “What the heck?” Nick asked aloud, as he looked out the window. “Where are we?”

Pressing his cheek against the glass, he looked out the window, peering down the side of the train, looking towards the lead engine. The landscape was slowing, trees coming into focus and three black jeeps appeared in the distance, pulling out of a dirt road that ran parallel to the train tracks that had just become visible, emerging from the trees. The windows of the jeeps were all tinted black, and there were three tall antennas rising from the roof of each one. Glancing back at Charlotte across the aisle, Nick whispered, “I think I see something weird going on up there. There’s a bunch of jeeps that look military… like from Fringe or the X-Files or something – para-military even.”

“Shit.” Carissa thought. “Here we go again,” she thought, wondering how those bastards kept finding her so quickly. Reaching across the empty space, she grabbed Richard’s wrists and spoke firmly – her eyes drilling into his. “You seem nice, and you’re pretty good looking. You can come with me right now and we both might die. Or you can sit here and continue on your journey to Thunder Bay, forever wondering about that girl you met on the train that time.”

She confronted him with it so quickly that Nick had no time to think. There was a fire in her eyes; a gleam that was otherworldly.

“What do you know?” he asked, in a higher voice than he have liked. “What’s going on? What’s happening? Are those trucks here for…. where are you going….”, his questions trailed off, as she stood up and starting heading down the aisle toward the back of the train. His thoughts were racing, mulling over this unexpectedly tantalizing offer. “She’s really pretty,” he heard his body say, “but what the hell was going on…” His mind wandered, and he briefly imagined her curls bouncing on the pillow of his bed back home. This arousing thought was quickly interrupted by the sound of the train car’s emergency doors being pried open. “Something’s up,” he mumbled under his breath, “I should just be cool,” he feared, suddenly worried that there was a criminal on the train somewhere. He started thinking about the expired parking tickets he had been putting off paying for three months, these thoughts still mixed with the possibilities presented by the sudden invitation she had thrust upon him. He’d become so entranced with thoughts of this beautiful stranger with delicious curls, that he had not noticed her exit. He snapped out of his thoughts just in time to catch a fleeting glimpse of this girl’s nicely shaped behind, dashing down the aisle of the next train car, heading for the exit at the end of the next car.

He was getting up to follow her when the door at opposite end of their train car burst open, revealing two men in black military clothing. He tried to get a look at them, but his vision was drawn to the weapons they had just raised. One of them grabbed a communicator from his hip and started speaking a strange language. “Their guns look German or something,” Nick pondered, “with barrels that are twisted or something’.” Nick suddenly realized the fragile position he was in. She had left him here out one way, and these guys just came in the other. He had to make a choice – torn between two open doors on a train in the middle of lake country Ontario. One of the soldier types put a hand on his shoulder, pushing him meekly back into his seat. Hearing a muffled cough, Nick looked back over his shoulder, startled by a silent man wearing a blue suit and strange sunglasses with a red sheen. The sunglasses had a weird red sheen. Nick wondered what video game these guys had stepped out of. First the funny guns, now the ridiculous eyewear, not to mention this beautiful mystery woman – Charlotte.

Sitting down, Nick watched as the two soldiers started to run down the aisle, heading in the direction that she had bolted. “She’s probably five cars down by now”, he figured, noticing that he had unconsciously crossed his fingers for her. He thought back to 30 minutes earlier, when he had board the train, and could picture her making her way through the luggage compartment.

“Where is she?” Red Glasses asked Nick suddenly, with steel determination in his voice and one of those funny guns pointed into the side of Nick’s neck. It was like that cyborg from the Terminator movie was standing before Nick, he thought, fearing his pants might get a little bit wetter.

Raising his hands over his head, Nick said honestly, with an appropriate level of conviction: “I swear to you man… I thought she was cute and I flirted with her – but she took off and went that way when the train stopped. I was just about to give her my phone number and now…“, his voice trailed off, lest cowardice begin to make it tremble. His eyes told the entire story.

Red Glasses poked Nick in the chest with his twisted rifle barrel. The gun seemed to be made of a kind of metal unlike any other that Nick had ever come across. More aggressive weapon handling by Red Glasses forced Nick back into his chair. “Sit and stay,” Red Glasses boomed, his authority unquestionable.

“I’m not going anywhere – trust me – I just want to be in Thunder Bay by Saturday, there’s a big hockey game at the -” he was cut off, noticing that Red Glasses had taken off in the direction that Charlotte had gone, the two soldiers having already followed. Red Glasses was moving quickly, a stiff gait in his walk.

Alone now for first time since he had boarded the train in Winnipeg, Nick quickly slipped his watch off his wrist, flipping it over before using his fingernail to pry the back panel off, revealing a glowing green bar within.
The watch was actually a satellite transponder, now set to record; providing detailed location information of the subject, Carissa. He was assigned to protect her. Nick thought it was kind of cute that she had picked the name Charlotte when she had been asked. “It’s like she really wanted to try something new and have a fresh start,” he thought, before his mind wandered to the name Charlotte and its relation to a childhood story about a spider and a pig. He hoped that ‘Charlotte’ would appreciate the incoming backup. Nick was sorry he had to miss it, and wished that the boss had allowed him to carry his .45 on this mission. At least he knew he could always catch the backup SAT-feed recordings in a few hours. He closed his eyes and sent a mental wish to this pretty target – praying she would be safe for just a few more minutes. The train sat motionless, until the gunfire started.

* * *

After entering the luggage compartment Carissa grabbed a dozen duffle bags off from the racks, stacking and piling them to create a makeshift ladder, tall enough to reach the rooftop fire escape. Climbing up the stack awkwardly and trying to keep her balance, she extended her arm, her fingertips stretching to reach the small lever that would release the catch. She had flipped the hatch up and was just pulling her feet up through the opening when she heard the first shots.

The soldiers were shooting at her feet as they dangled. She could not let them disable her, Carissa thought – staying immobile would mean certain death. The thought was fleeting, and Carissa was off and racing down the train towards the last car – maintaining her balance and leaping over the gaps between as she went.

The universe of stars above her made her head spin, suddenly filled with paranoid delusions about satellites and being under observation. She thought briefly about what to do next, and then saw that the train was currently resting over a small ravine filled with snow. The snow sparkled in the late night air. She jumped.

* * *

The air was suddenly filled with the tremendous buzzing sound of helicopter rotor blades, and Carissa identified two aircraft fast. Moments later, troops of men wearing black combat gear began to rappel, sliding down ropes and landing on top of the train. Guns raised, the men swarmed over the train, blowing open hatches and dropping inside. Carissa took advantage of the moment, keeping one eye on the helicopters overhead while she crawled on her belly towards the next clump of bushes. She could see the beginning of a forest that stretched for miles, only 100 yards away. Keeping her head low and sprinting toward the trees, she kept expecting to hear gunfire and be hit in the back by a cannon round.

She dove into the woods, rolling and coming to a crouch behind a large tree trunk.

Breathing heavy, she thought about that nice guy on the train, who seemed so kind and harmless, even with his wet pants. She smiled at the memory of the dimple on his cheek, then remembered that she didn’t even know his real name. Taking a deep breath, she listened carefully for 30 more seconds, and then backed away into the dark to disappear again. She wondered how they kept finding her and how long she could stay free. She still half-wondered why they wanted her so bad; why they had been after her since she escaped that institute with all those other freaky experiments. Wishing one more time that Nick would have joined her on the run, she shook her head and muttered to herself, “Nah… Come on… he would have just slowed ya down – you know Carissa – you’re fast as hell.”

Then she was gone.

Curtis Matwychuk-Goodman

—

The highest expression of friendship has been described as being love based in marriage and that which is based in virtuous moral character.  It has been articulated as being based within action, where certain expressions make true friendships possible for humanity.  When friendship exists, an individual is able to develop morally, intellectually and spiritually.  Since all individual actions are aggregated within society, when there is a greater occurrence of true friendship between the self and others, there is a type of intellectual and moral transcendence that society itself experiences.  In turn, engaging true friendships can be thought of as beneficial to humanity.

I will argue here that true friendship is based in recognition of others, spirituality, intellectual acuity, and first begins with knowing oneself.  True friendship is made possible by distinct expressions of human action and feelings.  This paper will provide perspective on true friendship by utilizing texts written in the enlightenment and ancient periods of thought.  Specifically this paper will compare and contrast the writings of the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard on marriage from Part II of “Either/Or” with the writings on ethics and virtue friendship by ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle as found in Books VIII and IX of the “Nicomachean Ethics.” The idea of marriage and true friendship will be used somewhat interchangeably.

The structure of this paper will first focus on the main argument of Kierkegaard from the first chapter, “The Esthetic Validity of Marriage,” from Part II in Either/Or.  This discussion will center on interpreting Judge William’s letter to a younger friend and his understanding of marriage as true friendship.  True friendship for Kierkegaard is based within a strong relationship with God.  His discussion is predicated on the belief human nature is either – to conquer, or to possess.  In marriage one is able to possess and has no need to conquer which seems to indicate a transcendence of human nature.  Such a relationship allows for the concrete development of humans because it is a process of internal and external self-realization.  In this way, Kierkegaard believes a marriage builds a relationship with God which makes it eternal, historical and morally correct.

Following Kierkegaard’s main argument a brief review of relevant secondary literature will be discussed as the second part of this paper.  In particular this paper will review: Amy Hall’s “Kierkegaard and the Treachery of Love;” Kierkegaard’s Ethic of Love: Divine Command and Moral Obligation by Stephen Evans; and Graham M. Smith’s “Kierkegaard from the Point of View of The Political.”  This portion will attempt to dissect each article’s main interpretation of Kierkegaard’s understanding of marriage.  In doing so it will broaden this paper’s understanding of Kierkegaard’s true friendship and will seek to answer the question – is friendship based in marriage really the ultimate form of transcendence for humans?

The third section of this paper will present Aristotle’s understanding of friendship.  The Nicomachean Ethics (NE) provides a discussion for which to compare and contrast Kierkegaard’s position.  Aristotle’s main argument is that virtue friendship is the culmination of human experience and is truly the pathway to happiness.  Friendship actively engages the intellectual and ethical self; such realization of ethical and intellectual being is good because of itself.  Therefore Aristotle implies friendship, like justice, is both a means and an end to happiness.  By connecting the idea of justice and the practice of friendship, Aristotle contends that friendship is necessary for a functional society.

The fourth section of this paper will include a brief review of secondary literature interpretations of Aristotle’s true friendship.  The secondary literature argues that Aristotle’s discussion of ‘means’ does not account for the vicious persons of the world and is prone to failure in interpretation.  It questions whether Aristotle correctly addresses the proper way in which to attain the ideal type of friendship?

The fifth section of this paper will compare Kierkegaard and Aristotle’s understandings of true friendship.  It will be clear that marriage and virtue types of friendship are compatible but not fully because of their relative scope and pretenses.  Both philosophers’ ideas of true friendship are rooted in common world perception and are thought to be developed with proximity and openness among people.  Friendship as a natural expression of humanity is also an idea shared by both philosophers.  Although, each philosopher differs on the exact form and meaning of true friendship – a difference entrenched in their respective positions on the means and ends of true friendship.  Kierkegaard’s argument seems heavily centered upon the spiritual ends of friendship; while Aristotle’s argument seems to offer a more applicable and balanced understanding of the means and ends of friendship.

The philosophical perceptions and principles presented within this paper will finally be applied to recent controversy between obtaining public services in Quebec and the Muslim tradition of wearing a niqab.  This paper will try to rationalize the state of affairs and will explain the relevance of true friendship as presented in Kierkegaard, Aristotle, and the secondary literature.  Ultimately this paper will attempt to provide clues as to why such an absurd public debate has ensued and what it may mean about the current state of friendship.

Kierkegaard – Marriage as True Friendship

The “Esthetic Validity of Marriage” by Søren Kierkegaard is the first chapter in Part II of the Either/Or collection of works.  The text is written under a pseudonym and in the form of a letter: from Judge William to the younger Johannes, from The Seducers Diary found in the latter of Part I in Either/Or.  In this way, the Either/Or series should be thought of as a dialogue between the aesthete and the ethical, Johannes and the Judge respectively, and provides the reader with contrasting perspectives available in choosing their own life’s path.

More or less representing the ‘Or’ side of Kierkegaard’s debate, the Judge explicates the ethical significance of marriage and the related importance of forming a true friendship with another person.  This is accomplished by comparing the rightness of an ethical approach to life with that of the aesthete.  More specifically, the Judge outlines the shortfalls of the aesthete, citing concern with immediate pleasures and an overly passive approach to life.  The tone of the Judge’s letter is best described as being admonishing towards Johannes.  The Judge is specific in describing the importance of an up-building process Johannes must undergo.[1] The Judge advises Johannes, based on his seniority and personal experience in life, that he should start to consider marriage.

The Judge criticizes Johannes, the ‘seducer,’ for being too cavalier in his personal relations with others.  Johannes is described as being a virtuoso of romantic and erotic love and because of this he is encouraged to establish better forms of friendship and to take life more seriously,

Just consider your life is passing… when you are no longer shown any further possibilities in life, when recollection alone is left, recollection, but not in the sense in which you love so much, this mixture of fiction and truth, but the earnest and faithful recollection of your conscience.[2]

The Judge explores the dangers of Johannes’ lifestyle; whereby it is to be pitied to pursue the ‘abstract’ through moods and living in illusion because it achieves nothing.  In a way Kierkegaard is also criticizing the light-mindedness of his era.  He is critical because of the debauchery he sees with increasing instances of unethical practices within society.  The ‘Either,’ is erotic and romantic love, which are presented and criticized as the aesthete.  The seducer is associated with immorality and illusionary egotism.  Described as a conquering type of behaviour, these forms of relations are considered detrimental to one’s character because it takes the individual further away from a relationship with God.  It is worth noting that both ‘either’ and ‘or’ are intended to represent the extreme instances of perspective one could have.

The Judge compares the physical dispositions of human nature which he believes are to conquer versus to possess.  The superiority is obvious, “It is not the given that is great, but the acquired.”[3] The judge states that true greatness lies in possessing because it focuses on recollection which develops humility, contentment, patience and prayer.  Recollection provides ability for self growth and helps to realize the temporal realities of humanity.  The Judge recognizes that although it is sad to grow old there is a “much more profound sadness that comes over a person if he cannot grow old.”[4] One can surmise that living without concreteness and reflection does not allow one to fully develop as a person.   Furthermore a “healthy individual lives simultaneously in hope and recollection – only thereby does his life gain true and substantive continuity.”[5] To live concretely is to be historical; to be historical is established through true concrete friendships such as marriage.

The Judge argues marriage is superior to romantic love because it is a transfiguration of romantic love; in the same way that romantic love is a transcendence of mere erotic love.  Marital love acquires meaning over time through ‘concentricity’ and because it is both ethical and religious.[6] This depicts a hierarchy of love where marital love is the human ideal because it engages the spiritual self.  Kierkegaard understands that the ethical and religious implicitly positions marriage backwards in time and forwards in time.  The Judge qualifies marital love as the “infinite moment of love.”[7] Furthermore the Judge describes marital love as concentric which implies an inward motion that opens a spiritual dialogue where “it will fight together with God for itself, will gain itself in patience;” which also implies a historical nature inherent to marital love.[8] The Judge also indicates a change of individual identity in the motion of marital love, where a “person who loves… has lost himself in another, but in losing and forgetting himself in the other he is open to the other and in forgetting himself in another he is remembered in the other.”[9] This perspective is further reinforced by the way the text is presented, as a conversation of three minds within one dialogue.  The main voice is represented by the Judge which also includes the secondary perspective of his own wife, while the tertiary perspective is that of Johannes, as anticipated by the Judge.  The fact that the Judge speaks for both him and his wife represents a belief that marriage is an integration of identity and an expansion of personal disposition.

A spouse is described as a friendship of the highest kind because it expands an individual in an external and internal sense.   Marriage is this way because of the close connection that is forged with another human and with God.  It contributes to internal expansion because it is described as reflective love that begins “with a kind of doubt that there was no possibility of loving anyone else.”[10] It is also understood as an active condition based in openness, described as an “absolute awakening” rooted in intuition, or an irresistible force of attraction towards the other.[11] In being open one is giving wholly and transparently which the Judge says is the mark of the ethical.  Openness is accepting actuality, hiding nothing and taking responsibility for each other’s being.  Confident self-assurance exists through one’s openness; a conception of freedom of self helps to overcome any doubt and is equivocal to accepting God’s will.[12] Reflective love is also based in choice or a sense of self-resignation; best described as the willingness to engage in self-denial for the express interest of the other.  Such sacrificial self-interest leads to the external expansion involved in marriage.

Kierkegaard, by way of the Judge, views marriage as “truly a state well-pleasing to God” that embraces faith, oath, humbleness and freedom.  Together these virtues allow a person to understand and strive for the ideal in life in relation to God’s will.  In this way, Kierkegaard understands marriage is a life calling and therefore the pure existence of it is bound in duty.  Kierkegaard has three specific reasons why marriage is important: it ennobles and cultivates character; it enables procreation of the human race; and it creates family and a sense of home.  Marriage is said to rescue an individual from habits, described as the “tyranny of one-sidedness,” and instills character traits like patience, collaboration and understanding.[13] Children are important because God commands “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.”[14] Children also are the “greatest and most significant thing in the world” because they teach us about ourselves through an opportunity to once again experience the whole of life through another.[15] Furthermore, children allow for a comprehension of one’s own life and in having a child one creates a sense of home and is able to begin acquiring possessions.  A sense of home is like a sense of concreteness in life.  By fulfilling all three duty-bound reasons with love and truth, one is truly being Christian and is therefore capable of achieving infinite harmony and wisdom.[16] The rationale is that when many people fulfill the duty of marriage they join and contribute to building a permanent sense of human community or a type of Christian society.   This indicates that a proper marriage is a journey of personal transcendence guided by ethics and morality that contributes to an overall societal betterment.

By being ethical one is able to overcome the human condition of doubt and despair and allow their true personality to show, exposing a concrete self.  The Judge depicts this as a moment of choice, whereby “turning one’s face towards the other you choose yourself absolutely.”[17] Using a gentle stream as a metaphor, a marriage is

…quiet, modest, humming.  It does not have many changements (variations), and yet it is like that water, running, and yet like that water, it has melody, dear to the one who knows it, dear to him precisely because he knows it.[18]

That is to say, being ethical creates a stable sense of self, in agreement with God, and it is because of this that each proper friendship will lead one to choose the good and always make the right choice in their own self becoming.  Such transcendence occurs in a hierarchal fashion; first one’s being is aesthetic, then one becomes ethical, and finally by being spiritual one forges a connection with God, akin to the human pinnacle of life.  “Just as nothing is impossible for God, so nothing is impossible for the religious individual either.”[19] In the journey to know oneself, a spouse is a person’s truest and closest friend that helps elevate oneself to a spiritual level, in connection with God.  Together marriage partners gain courage and strength in their love and spirituality and with God can overcome any challenge in life.

The wedding ceremony is of particular importance for Kierkegaard.  He describes marriage as a uniquely human ceremony that blesses the relationship with a higher unity and connection with God.  Marriage is a union of the universal and particular, “you are also a couple just like them; the same event is being repeated here in you, and you also are standing here alone in the infinite world, alone in the presence of God.”[20] The express intention and the concreteness of the declaration that constitutes a marriage ceremony allows each person in the relationship to be free and Kierkegaard believes that “the freer the individual the more aesthetically beautiful the marriage.”[21] This indicates that Kierkegaard’s motive for marriage is more concerned with appearance and perspective of those from outside the marriage.  Although this is balanced by the statement, “It takes courage to be willing to appear as one really is; it takes courage not to want to buy oneself off from a little humiliation when one can do this by a certain secretiveness…”[22] The concern with outsider’s perception is overcome by the personal development that takes place as a result of the marriage ceremony.  In this way the ceremony of marriage should appeal to the esthetic while fulfilling and bringing the individuals closer to God.

So far this paper has interpreted the main argument of Kierkegaard where the truest form of friendship is experienced through marriage.  Marriage is depicted as an existential reality.  Marriage is a condition for achieving the best form of human existence.  That is, marriage is the means to happiness as experienced through closer spiritual connection with God.  Kierkegaard has provided a spiritual foundation to connect with another person which will be instrumental in my final understanding of true friendship.  Let the discussion now shift to secondary interpretations of Kierkegaard.

Secondary Interpretations of Kierkegaard

This paper will now examine three relevant secondary literature sources in an attempt to expand the understanding of Kierkegaard’s argument.  Is friendship based in marriage really the ultimate form of transcendence for humans?

In his article “Kierkegaard from the Point of View of the Political,” Graham Smith interprets Kierkegaard’s understanding of the political as best understood as being grounded within the spiritual self.  Smith understands Kierkegaard’s main argument as shedding light on selfhood and how it relates to humanity.  The article suggests that any of the varying forms of human political community, be it facism or democracy, have relative shortcomings when compared to the potentiallity of spiritually connected beings.  Since Kierkegaard is considered devoutly Christian there is a recognition that in existence everyone has an implicit responsibility for one another’s wellbeing.  Smith understands Kierkegaard’s perspective as being a concern for society’s overall well-being; the politics of the Judge’s era is depicted as suffering from despair.  Despair is “the failure of the self to relate in the correct way to God (and from this point to others).”[23] To have faith in God is the correct relation with God and will free one from despair.  In this way, Smith interprets Kierkegaard’s self as being either animal or divine in nature – Kierkegaard presents the dichotomy of human nature as a choice.

Smith interprets Kierkegaard’s understanding of the modern political subject and arena as being harsh and pessimistic.

For Kierkegaard modern political subjects veer towards a mistaken sociality: a sociality that manifests in a self-interestedness and anonymity which undermines selfhood. Such a sociality does not take the task of selfhood seriously… Therefore, political life is empty because its participants are empty.[24]

Smith argues that Kierkegaard’s view of his era was that most people do not comprehend the task before them and are unable to relate to the ideal in life.  This is worrisome for Kierkegaard because these people are are therefore incapable of spiritual and moral transcendence.  This brings about the questions, is Kierkegaard’s standard for true friendship set too high for the average person?  Afterall, many people appear to find happiness in life without marriage including devoutly religious priests and monks.  Kierkegaard himself writes from a religious perspective but does not account for his form of true friendship being too exclusive, which it may be.

The chapter “Married Man as Master Thief in Either/Or,” from Amy Hall’s book Kierkegaard and the Treachery of Love, provides a basis to examine Kierkegaard’s fundamental argument of Either/Or.  Hall describes the fundamental necessity of choosing one’s ideals in life as a responsibility – as almost a paradoxical expression in choosing to achieve the self and the ideal self in harmony together.  She understands the Judge’s version of aesthetic interest as being “obtusely cheerful” and that “his domesticated salvation preys upon the solicitous work of his wife.”[25] The dutiful life outlined by the Judge is described as being muscular and implicitly characterizes a woman’s subservient role within the domestic order.[26] In this way, Hall provides a feminist perspective which attempts to expose Kierkegaard’s viewpoint of the ethical as not being transcendence of the human soul.  Hall understands Kierkegaard’s marriage as simply a socially accepted extension of the aesthetic; which should not be viewed as ethical because he implicitly advocates for the subjugation of women.

Hall understands the love for woman exists as a source of pleasure for both the Judge and the seducer.  The fundamental difference is that the Judge’s ethical love is deep and prolonged whereas Johannes’ aesthetic love is shallow and sporadic.[27] Hall interprets the Judge’s marital love as being portrayed as supreme because it is taken into higher concentricity when conferring with God.  In this way, the Judge advocates eroticism that is “enabled by Christian marriage [which] vindicates Christianity as the ‘highest development of the human race.”[28] Hall questions who is really loved in such a three-way relationship between man, woman and God; the answer is that the Judge “continues to use woman as the intercessor who connects him with the finite.”[29] She argues that in much the same way the seducer seeks a pure virgin woman the Judge is also involved in a parastic relationship that is more subtle and based upon a more complex end.

Hall’s interpretation of Kierkegaard questions the stability of his interpretation of the friendship of marriage as really the truest form of friendship.  Hall suggests Kierkegaard’s understanding of marriage as a relationship where the wife “belongs solely to God,” should be considered sacreligious for the Judge claims he is “everything to (his) wife.”[30] This hints that the Judge himself has a contradictory understanding of his own true love.  Hall interprets Kierkegaard’s marital relationship as not about intimate human connection but instead a vehicle for gaining spiritual acceptance among the Christian community.  This begs the questions – is Kierkegaard’s marital love really the truest form of friendship?  If one is not a Christian is Kierkegaard’s model of true friendship at all applicable?  Is true friendship different for men and women?

Chapter two of Stephen Evans’ book Kierkegaard’s Ethic of Love: Divine Commands and Moral Obligations, provides an account of the ethical as a stage of existence.  The basis of Evan’s argument rests on the fact that as a whole Kierkegaard’s writings did not really add much to the understanding of human nature but instead consistently called into question human systems.[31] He notes that Kierkegaard does hold traditional stereotypes of the role of men and women in society and contrary to Hall, he does not recognize Kierkegaard as misogynistic.  Evans argues that taken from the highest level of spirituality there is a “fundamental equality between men and women.”[32] Evan’s chapter focuses on Either/Or as being a presentation of the ethical and aesthetic as competing viewpoints on how to live.

The key argument of Part II, as understood by Evans, is that a person’s ideals have direct role in determining the actions undertaken by an individual and are deeply rooted in the ethical.  In consciously choosing the ethical, a person will choose that which is right and will find meaning in their life.  Evans believes the fundamental question at stake for Kierkegaard is whether to “take choice itself seriously, to seek ideals for which a person can live or die” in order to overcome desires by establishing and living up to commitments.[33] Evans believes that the aesthetic and ethical are stances of “existential spheres which can define a person’s life as a whole.”[34] In this way, the aesthetic is based in desire and want, where the ethical is based in commitment and self-sacrifice.  In rejecting the fundamental choice of ideals, the ethical, a person is subject to meaninglessness and a boredom wrought life, which ultimately leads to despair and depression which is understood as the lowest form of human existence.  Evans interpretation indicates that the suffering brought on by guilt sparks a change within a person towards becoming religious and ethical.

Taken together, these three secondary literature interpretations add to our understanding of Kierkegaard.  However, each present some potential shortcomings in Kierkegaard’s true friendship.  Smith recognizes Kierkegaard’s belief that marriage is inherently good in and of itself.  Yet, Smith understands Part II of Either/Or as a lament of the relative shortcomings of the age and Kierkegaard is fundamentally pressing for greater ethical practice and therefore greater sprituality.  Smith’s interpretation begs the question – is Kierkegaard too exclusive in his standard for true friendship?  Hall understands Kierkegaard as a mysoginist.  Her interpretation of marriage as true friendship is not congruent with Kierkegaard.  Hall interpets Kierkegaard’s marriage as the domestication of the female in the express interest of the male’s spirituality, somewhat akin to thievery.  She rejects marriage as true friendship because the goal of spiritual connection with God incites usery for personal gain which takes away from the friendliness of the relationship.  This begs the question – is true friendship the same for both men and women?  Evans, however, rebuffs Hall’s interpretation of Kierkegaard as a mysoginist.  Although Evans argues Kierkegaard did not add much to our understanding of human nature.  Instead he believes Kierkegaard presents a choice between the ethical, and in turn a connection with God, with that of the aesthetic which offers only a meaningless life of despair without God.  In essence a choice of either a full life or an empty life.

The secondary literature brings about many questions, is Kierkegaard’s choice too Christian and exclusive, mysoginistic and unethical, or simply an unattainable standard of friendship?  Moving forward, in an attempt to expand our understanding of true friendship this paper will now examine Aristotle’s argument.  As an old-world philosopher Aristotle comprehends true friendship slightly differently than Kierkegaard; true friendship is not simply found in marriage but is an expression of virtuous moral character.

Aristotle – Friendship as Virtue

Aristotle provides a good source of reflection for Kierkegaard’s interpretations of true friendship.  It is well documented that Kierkegaard studied Aristotle’s work and wrote in reference to him.  In an attempt to establish linkages between Kierkegaard’s Either/Or and Aristotle we will specifically examine the Nicomachean Ethics (NE).  More specifically this paper will focus on Book VIII and IX, respectively described as friendship in relation to community and the self.  It will be clear that true friendship is not excluded to just marriage between a man and woman – but is possible among people of similar essence.

Utility, pleasure and virtue are the three types of friendship described by Aristotle in Book VIII of the NE.  Of the three types, friendship based in virtue is the most important to this discussion.  Virtue friendship is described as a relationship built on mutual love for one another, an attraction of those with likeness of moral character.  Such friendship is the epitome of existence, of action and feeling, in one’s quest to develop a virutous moral character.

Virtuous moral character is the ultimate goal of human life and should be thought of as the fostering of proper action and proper desire.  Described thoroughly in Book II, Aristotle’s description of human characteristics is based upon a choice consisting of means between excess and deficiency in both feelings and action.  An example of human nature described by Aristotle is that of:

Pleasures and pains – though not all of them and less so concerning pains – the mean condition is temperance and the excess is dissipation.  Those who fall short concerning pleasure don’t turn up very often, for which reason they and their sort have not happened on a name, but let them be termed ‘insensible.’[35]

Based on this, to be virtuous in pleasure one must find the mean in their action between tempering the act of indulgence in sweet treats and the suppression of such desires.  That is one must find pleasure in the right measure while avoiding the vice in extreme action and feeling like that of hedonism and ascetecism.  As with other virtues like courage, anger and truth, the NE argues it is of utmost importance to learn how to act within the unpredictability of life.  Furthermore knowing how to be properly affected by any circumstance is the path to a contented and full life.

The culmination of human life is where one knows how to act and feel and is described as one having virtuous moral character.  Aristotle understands like-mindedness of virtuous moral character among a group of people as something similar to friendship.[36] Aristotle believes that a “good person ought to be a lover of self, since he will both profit himself and benefit the others by performing beautiful actions.”[37] This suggests that a person must first love himself and in doing so will understand what is necessary to bring about his individual happiness.  Equipped with such wisdom an individual further develops a virtuous nature by means of active friendships.  Aristotle explicitly states that no happy person would willingly choose to have all good things for only himself “for a human being is meant for a city and is of such a nature as to live with others.”[38] This suggests that in addition to being virtuously beautiful, friendship is necessary for a healthy society.

The culmination of moral character within society could be thought of as the preconditions necessary for justice.  Justice is necessary for a healthy society and is based in equality and reciprocity; justice is described as being either conventional or natural.[39] Conventional justice is a common bond that exists between citizens of a polity and is most apparent in the laws of the land.  His discussion makes it apparent that friendship is an expression of the “fully developed virtue of character” and should be thought of as “more natural than justice.”[40] In this way, Aristotle links justice with friendship because it is naturally based in equality and reciprocity.  Like justice, friendship brings about happiness which is good for its own sake.

A genuine friendship is like justice because a person recognizes the inherent value of his neighbor and naturally wishes for the best in the other’s life.  “So like-mindedness seems to be friendship in a political sense, just as people mean it, for it has to do with what is advantageous and what relates to life.”[41] In virtuous relationships both parties must actively engage in loving one another.  Aristotle is satisfied believing that a good friendship is both a means and an end in achieving such goodness in life.  “Equality or similarity is friendship, and especially the similarity that comes from virtue, since such people are constant in themselves and stay constant toward one another.”[42] This means that people are attracted to one another as a result of similarities in values, habit, and intellect.  This also implies that people are attracted to constancy in such relationships, perhaps because of the predictability of behaviour that develops around friendships.

Aristotle contends human well-being is the highest good in human life to be achieved and is akin to happiness.  Such goodness is possible in the form of virtuous friendship because friendship itself develops an understanding of correct moral feeling and action.  Aristotle states that “those who give freely to one another for their own sake are free of complaints,” which seems to suggest that by engaging in the practice of friendship a life of contentment is likely to follow.[43] In this way, Aristotle believes that friendship is the greatest of external goods because together friends can develop moral sensibilities since friends engage in the exchange of favours they are obviously concerned with the welfare of fellow human beings.[44] In addition to such moral virtue, Aristotle contends that friendship also develops intellectual virtues.  Aristotle believes in order for friendship to flourish one “…ought to share in a friend’s awareness that he is and this would come through living together and sharing conversation and thinking.”[45] The preconditions for friendship exist in living together since proximity enables conversation among humans.

Conversation and shared contemplation allows people to actively engage their intellectual perception and reasoning abilities.  The intellectual virtue of contemplation is characterized by constancy or perseverance of virtuous action that includes dialectic improvements of one’s persona by way of help that only a friendship can provide.  Such close interaction of humans allows intellectual virtue to arise from commonalities that grow with greater association of one another “and they seem to become even better people by putting the friendship to work and by straightening one another out.”[46] This is to suggest that friendship by virtue actually expands the human soul and contributes to the betterment of each individual’s overall character through a type of dialectic process.

Aristotle recognizes that political community is made up of the sum of its parts.  Wherein different types of communities may be characterized by different forms of friendship – all of which together form a greater sense of political community.  The civil relationship that exists in political community both serves individuals and is shaped by an individual’s interaction within society.  Persons of the same city share the same sense of justice and a common purpose; as such, Aristotle understands the form of friendship changes based on different regimes.  The aggregation of virtuous moral character leads to the betterment of society’s overall character.  Aristotle points out “training in virtue would come from living among good people.”[47] Two examples of differences in friendship are found in Chapter 10 of Book VIII, in the regime of kingship friendship is based on beneficense and should be thought of as being similar to a father and son relationship.  Similarly, in the aristocratic regime friendship is based on merit and should be thought of as similar to the relationship between man and wife.  In the case of virtuous friendships, “friends who are equal ought, in accord with their equality, to be equal in loving and all the rest, while those who are unequal ought to give what is proportional to the superiority.”[48] Such equality in loving leads to unconditional reciprocity and a sense of other regarding which is beneficial regardless of the regime’s form.

When humans are conscious of those around them and are genuinely concerned with their well-being Aristotle describes this as the full activation of humanity; for the “highest good of human life is promoting human well-being.”[49] This type of happiness is found in true friendship, which could also be called contemplative friendship; such friendship is the end goal of human life for Aristotle because there is no further level of human satisfaction that could be hoped for.  An important distinction to keep in mind, is that friendship is based in action and constancy, therefore true friendship is never fully achieved but instead should be constantly experienced.

Secondary Interpretations of Aristotle

To expand our understanding of Aristotle’s core argument of friendship as an expression of virtuous moral character this paper will now focus on secondary literature interpretations of the Nicomachean Ethics.  This discussion will include articles from Rosalind Hursthouse, and Ian Adams and R.W. Dyson.  In order to expand this paper’s understanding of Aristotle’s contemplative friendship this paper will determine if Aristotle correctly addresses the forms of friendship and the proper way in which one is to attain such an ideal type of existence.

In Rosalind Hursthouse’s article, “The Central Doctrine of the Mean,” she understands Aristotle’s assertion that the virtuous succeed in finding the mean of action and feeling.  However, because the mean is understood as being relative to the circumstances and is determined by one’s own personal motivation, Aristotle’s standard is prone to failure because even the incompetent and vicious could behave as a virtuous person.  She gives the example:

…bent on deceiving my husband, I aim at “the mean relative to the circumstances,” being careful to avoid appearing too eager that he should go away for a week, without annoying him by appearing too indifferent, arranging to visit some of his relatives but not so many as to leave me without enough time to spend with my lover – and may well hit upon it readily enough if I am clever.[50]

This example provides context, within a marriage, where one can appear to be virtuous without having the actuality of being so.  This is a major blow to Aristotle’s understanding of virtuousness because it suggests a breakdown in his reasoning.  It suggests that it is possible to obtain a suitable and virtuous mean by employing false extremes.  If anyone can appear virtuous, then could they also appear to have the overall virutousness of character necessary for the precondition of true friendship?  If that is the case, then a clever person could deceive others into a contemplative friendship that is indeed not virtuous.

However, this fails to take into account that Aristotle argues constancy is a necessary element in virtuous being.  A vicious person is prone to extremes in action which means if they try to appear virtuous they may only be able to do so for a short time before others notice.  Aristotle argues that through practical wisdom and experience virtuous people can detect such vicious people and would not associate with them.  Therefore a vicious person is incapable of experiencing the highest and best form of friendship because a virtuous person would not engage in the act of friendship in the first place.

Adams and Dyson believe that Aristotle recognizes that although there are numerous forms of friendship there is only one true type of friendship that can bring about the greatest pleasures available in life.  Virtue friendship is most important because of the active disposition to reason.  In actively ‘being a friend’ one engages the entirety of their sense of being and shares their existence with another human being through all human experiences such as the sensations of satisfaction, pain, sadness, joy, excitement, and debate.  Aristotle’s message is that “the good of others can make an important contribution to our own good.”[51] Virtue friendship is affirmed as being supreme true friendship for Adams and Dyson because of the expansion of the self that occurs; specifically the stimulation of philosophical understanding which thereby expands individual capabilities and one’s own satisfaction of existence in this world.  Within this understanding one must question – is it possible for a vicious person to overcome their shortcomings and become a virtuous person through marriage?  Or perhaps more importantly, is it possible for a virtuous person to uplift a vicious person to virtuosity through such an exclusive friendship?

Critical Interpretation of Kierkegaard and Aristotle

Now that we have an acceptable level of understanding of each philosopher, how do Kierkegaard and Aristotle compare with each other?

First let us state the similarities between the two understandings of friendship offered by Kierkegaard and Aristotle.  In both cases the philosophers were sure to establish the rarity of occurrence of true friendship in life; in Chapter 6 of Book VIII Aristotle limits such friendship to a few good people, while Kierkegaard limits such friendship to one instance found only in the married life.  A maximum on true friendships is necessary for both philosophers because such relationships are based on stability and concreteness.  To illustrate true friendship Kierkegaard uses the metaphor of a single stream that is constant, modest and obvious only to those who understand it.  Meanwhile, Aristotle’s logic for a limit on true friendship is based on the contention that there are only so many good people naturally available to be friends with.

Both philosophers agree that proximity, openness and equality are preconditions for a successful friendship.  The concentricity of marriage for Kierkegaard leads to a special closeness of existence to the point that each individual identities become one single entity.  In a marriage, Kierkegaard understands an openness and freedom of spirit exists which leads to one’s personal transcendence.  Aristotle contends that virtue friendship is a culmination of virtue that is based within conversation with another.  Aristotle understands that uninhibited conversation in the company of a friend leads to active reasoning which enables one to become morally and intellectually enlightened.

Both philosophers can be understood within each other’s argument.  The greatest instance of similarity between how Kierkegaard understands friendship that is found within Aristotle’s framework is based within the example of the aristocratic regime.  Aristotle describes friendship in an aristocratic regime as being based on that which is right or what corresponds to what is best.  Aristotle describes this as alike to friendship between man and wife where the relationship is based on merit and actively engages what each does best, like a woman bearing children while the man provides sustenance.  Meanwhile, the greatest instance of similarity between Aristotle’s understandings of friendship within Kierkegaard’s framework of true friendship is the close parallel in forging a spiritual connection with the infinitude.  Aristotle understands happiness (a sense of the infinite) as being experienced through the benefits of virtue friendship.  A contemplative friendship enhances one’s understanding of the world through philosophy.  This is similar to Kierkegaard’s understanding of happiness that is based in marriage because it elevates one in a spiritual conversation with God that leads to one’s own acceptance of reality and finite being.

Of course, there are differences in the two philosopher’s understanding of true friendship.  The most obvious difference is found in Kierkegaard’s express doctrine-based religiosity and the lack of any such religiosity in Aristotle.  Kierkegaard advocates marriage as the means to an end, where the end goal is a closer relationship with God.  Aristotle, on the other hand, advocates a universal viewpoint where the act of friendship is both the means and the end of achieving human happiness.  That is, friendship brings about happiness and is happiness.

Kierkegaard understands true friendship in relation to the ethical and as related to the institution of marriage that is based in commitment and responsibility.  The relative success of such true friendships is preconditioned on shared ethical belief and in being Christian.  This creates a triangle of relation – between the self, the other person and God.  The spiritual connection with God brings about happiness; therefore marriage as true friendship is a means of achieving such a connection.  Kierkegaard places great significance in the marital relationship by saying the “greater the probability that something can be repeated, the less meaning… the less the probability, the greater the meaning.”[52] This is reaffirmed by his understanding that divorce is akin to being a traitor to love; a failure of the delicate nature of marriage.[53] In this way, Kierkegaard understands that since a truly great marriage comes into existence only once in a lifetime it is must be the ultimate and truest form of friendship.

Aristotle understands friendship a little differently.  He views true friendship as an understanding of the ethical that arises from within and is best developed through engaging true friends in conversation and reasoning.  Aristotle sees friendship as based within the individual as a sense of striving.  For Aristotle, one must first know how to feel and act in order to be capable of friendship; in first being a friend to oneself a capability of friendship with others is then possible.  He also understands that true friendships are not permanent, but are subject to change over time.  Aristotle understands that by experiencing true friendship, through shared contemplation and reason, one is actively being happy, which is good in and of itself.  Virtue friendship, by way of its existence, actually expands the human soul and contributes to the betterment of one’s overall character.  Aristotle is not clear as to what form such a true friendship would take; however his description seems to infer that a proper marriage would be an adequate fit.

Both philosophers have a different understanding of true friendship in relation to the self.  Aristotle understands that friendship is based in equality and a shared sense of virtuous morality that is more akin to natural justice.  Aristotle also connects the idea of friendship and the different manifestations with different types of regimes.  The connection that Aristotle draws is that friendship is relational from self to self.   On the other hand, Kierkegaard does recognize equality as a central precondition for true friendship; he does not, however, speak of justice or of friendship in relation to justice.  He fails to directly connect friendship to the larger political community and conceptualizes friendship merely as an individual connection from self to God.  Based on this we can conclude that Aristotle has more of an intellectual focus in trying to broaden the scope of his teachings to be relational to everyone within the polis.  The message of Aristotle is clear, friendship is necessary and the best form is found in actively sharing thought with others.  Whereas Kierkegaard is more narrowly focused on the spiritual and writes to prove marital love as being supreme.  He does not link true friendship to the overall political community but instead attempts to further a specific viewpoint of a tight-knit religious community that he views as superior.

This paper has so far established a foundation of Kierkegaard and Aristotle’s arguments of how true friendship should be thought of.  By comparing and contrasting the two philosophers’ arguments this paper has provided a basis for my own interpretation of the truest form of friendship.  True friendship should be thought of as a balance between the spiritual, the intellectual, the self, and another human being.  These three fundamental elements of being must be properly triangulated to provide human society with the greatest benefits of civilization.  Marriage seems to be a natural and adequate form to embody such a true friendship in its entirety.

Niqab Controversy in Perspective

The final section of this paper will apply my understanding of true friendship as a means of rationalizing the recent niqab controversy in Quebec. The recent controversy in Quebec, Canada is over group rights versus individual rights.  In particular the issue surrounds the offering of public services to people who cover their face with a niqab.  The Globe and Mail recently reported that

“Quebec’s Bill 94… would refuse government services, public employment, educational opportunities and even most medical care to Muslim women wearing the niqab.”[54]

A niqab is a garment worn by Muslim women that most often leaves only the eyes visible while covering the body, face and hair.  To wear the niqab is to adhere to hijab religious and cultural tradition.

It is reasonable to expect that such religious and individual expression would be allowable in the multicultural and religiously free nation of Canada.  However, this appears not to be the case in Quebec.  Is the decision to limit the delivery of public services to people practicing protected religious expressions basically against the democratic nature of Canadian society?  Can either side, the niqab-wearer or the province, be fully justified in their position?

The niqab garment is rooted in religious practice and conceals a woman’s body to the benefit of herself and her husband.  By concealing a woman’s identity while in public she is free from the hassle of wandering eyes and unwanted attention – it is almost a barrier against strangers.  In this way, the idea of the niqab is akin to Kierkegaard’s understanding of true friendship.  In wearing the niqab and adhering to religious practice one is able to develop a spiritual self.  Similarly, the niqab limits most personal human interaction to include only the woman’s husband, family and closest friends.  This reaffirms Kierkegaard’s triangle of relation – the self – the other self – and most importantly, God.  In Kierkegaard’s way, the niqab is very particular in establishing human connection.

If the niqab is such an important personal garment and Canada is a free nation with a history of establishing distinctness within society then why is there controversy?  Critics argue that the niqab is a misogynist instrument; a viewpoint that is, to some degree, in accord with Amy Hall’s interpretation of Kierkegaard’s shortcomings of marital friendship.  Is this congruent with the majority viewpoint of Quebecers with a strong history of Catholicism?  In this fashion, perhaps the niqab issue should be interpreted as a clash of cultures.

Aristotle, on the other hand, explains true friendship existing within the universal but his belief is preconditioned on knowing oneself first.  Wearing a niqab is a way of establishing one’s own identity in Quebec and is a direct expression of one’s uniqueness.  This should not come as being out of the ordinary in a place that has strove to create a distinct identity in and of itself since confederation.

Perhaps the majority of Quebecers seem to hold greater for support Aristotle’s universal understanding of friendship.  Society as a group seems to have a yearning to establish a connection between the self and self as a way to forge political community.  Such a perspective would argue that intellectual connections between the self and community is the best way of establishing true friendships and creating a better society.  Covering the body in such a conservative fashion eliminates any such opportunity to see facial expressions which in turn limits the extent of an intellectual linkage among common people.  The limited freedom and openness of exchange between the niqab wearer and people in society may lead to feelings of mistrust and a sense of cultural threat.

To a certain extent the niqab controversy could be thought of as borne from within extreme expression of Kierkegaard’s viewpoint of spiritual discipleship in marital love.  Similarly the controversy may be based within Aristotle’s interpretation of the need to know oneself before being capable of any form of friendship.  Since both philosophers argue the need for humans to promote the well-being of others they would most likely be equally dismayed at the subjugation of cultural uniqueness and expression of true friendship in Quebec’s attempted suppression of niqabs.  After all, Kierkegaard argues that marriage is necessary to fully develop oneself concretely and Aristotle contends that justice naturally arises from such true friendship.

Quebec please take note and be a better friend to each citizen by respecting the rights of association, intellectual and spiritual pursuit, and by recognizing every citizen as an individual.

Bibliography

Adams, Ian, and R Dyson. Fifty Major Political Thinkers. 2^nd edition. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Edited by Albert Kieth Witaker. Translated by Joe Sachs. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing, 2002.

Evans, Stephen. Kierkegaard’s Ethic of Love: Divine Commands and Moral Obligations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Hall, Amy. Kierkegaard and the Treachery of Love. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Hursthouse, Rosalind. “The Central Doctrine of the Mean.” In The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, by Richard Kraut, 97-115. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

Kierkegaard, Søren. Either/Or. Edited by Howard J. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Vol. II. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1987.

Orwin, Clifford. “No room at the Inn for Veiled Women? Get Real Canada.” Globe and Mail, March 31, 2010: Opinions.

Pakaluk, Michael. “Friendship.” Chap. 29 in A Companion to Aristotle, edited by Georgios Anaganostopoulos, 471-482. Chichester, West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing, 2009.

Smith, Graham M. “Kierkegaard from the Point of View of the Political.” History of European Ideas, 2005: 35-60.

[2] Ibid., 16.

[3] Ibid., 131.

[4] Ibid., 87.

[5] Ibid., 142.

[6] Ibid., 36,47.

[7] Ibid., 112.

[8] Ibid., 97.

[9] Ibid., 110.

[10] Ibid., 29.

[11] Ibid., 42.

[12] Ibid., 47.

[13] Ibid., 68.

[14] Ibid., 69.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., 148.

[17] Ibid., 177.

[18] Ibid., 144.

[19] Ibid., 20.

[20] Ibid., 90.

[21] Ibid., 94.

[22] Ibid., 105.

[23] Smith, Graham M. “Kierkegaard from the Point of View of the Political.” History of European Ideas, 2005, 39.

[24] Ibid., 49.

[25] Hall, Amy. Kierkegaard and the Treachery of Love. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 110.

[26] Ibid., 111.

[27] Ibid., 113.

[28] Quoted from Kierkegaard, 31; as found in Hall, 114.

[29] Hall, Kierkegaard and the Treachery of Love, 121.

[30] Quoted from Kierkegaard, 81; as found in Hall, 119.

[31] Evans, Stephen. Kierkegaard’s Ethic of Love: Divine Commands and Moral Obligations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, 34.

[32] Ibid., 43.

[33] Ibid., 47.

[34] Ibid., 48.

[35] Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Edited by Albert Kieth Witaker. Translated by Joe Sachs. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing, 2002, II.7.1107b5.

[36] Ibid., VIII.1.1155a25.

[37] Ibid., IX.9.1169b10-19.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid., V.5.1133b; V.7.1134b.

[40] Ibid., footnote 232, 144.

[41] Ibid., IX.6.1167b.

[42] Ibid., VIII.8.1159b.

[43] Ibid., IX.1.1164b.

[44] Ibid., IX.9.1169b10.

[45] Ibid., IX.9.1170b10.

[46] Ibid., IX.9.1170b12.

[47] Ibid., IX.9-1169b10-19.  

[48] Ibid., VIII.13.1162b.

[49] Ibid., IX.9.1169b10. 

[50] Hursthouse, Rosalind. “The Central Doctrine of the Mean.” In The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, by Richard Kraut, 97-115. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006, 104.

[51] Adams, Ian, and R Dyson. Fifty Major Political Thinkers. 2^nd edition. New York: Routledge, 2003, 16.

[52] Kierkegaard, 40.

[53] Ibid., 33.

[54] Orwin, Clifford. “No room at the Inn for Veiled Women? Get Real Canada.” Globe and Mail, March 31, 2010: Opinions.

Curtis M Goodman

—

This post will examine three songs on friendship by three different musical artists.  The goal is to better understand each song’s contribution to the discussion of friendship.  This post will predominantly focus on analyzing lyrical content in an effort to understand each song’s message about friendship.  The three songs and artists to be examined are: “Friends” by Led Zeppelin, which provides context from the 1970s era of mainstream English rock and roll music; “One of these Days” by Neil Young, which provides representation from Canada and a slice of country-folk song writing of Nashville from 1992; and “Bro Hymn Tribute” by Pennywise, that represents a Californian independent punk-rock context from 1991 and 1996. In addition to examining lyrical content, this post will also briefly analyze the melodies and harmonies of each respective song.  The main goal is to find meanings of friendship within the music.  The lyrics of the song will be provided before the discussion of each song.  To add to the experience, listen while you read, remember: if you like the songs be sure to buy them at your local music store.

Led Zeppelin – “Friends”

Bright light, almost blindin’

Black night still there shinin’

I can’t stop, keep on climbin’

looking for what I knew

Had a friend, she once told me

You got love, you ain’t lonely

Now she’s gone and left me only

lookin’ for what I knew

Ah-ahh, ah-ahh, ah-ah-ahh, ah-ahh

Mmm, I’m tellin’ you now

the greatest thing you ever can do, now

is trade a smile with someone who’s blue, now

It’s very easy, just-a

Met a man on the roadside cryin’

Without a friend, there’s no denyin’

you’re incomplete, there’ll be no findin’

lookin’ for what you knew

So anytime somebody needs ya

don’t let them down, although it grieves ya

Someday you’ll need someone like they do

lookin’ for what you knew

Ah-ahh, ah-ahh, ah-ah-ahh, ah-ahh

Mmm, mm, I’m tellin’ you, now

the greatest thing you ever can do, now

is trade a smile with someone who’s blue, now

It’s very easy, just-a, oh, yeah

Ah, nah, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, yeah

I’m tellin’ you, now

the greatest thing you ever can do, now

is trade a smile with someone who’s blue, now

It’s very easy, it’s very easy

It’s very easy, it’s easy, easy, yeah, yeah

The Led Zeppelin song “Friends” is about the inherent necessity of others for a full life.  The song asks what would happen without friends.  It answers that a person is incomplete and will never truly find what they are looking for in life without a friend.  Constant tones allude to the elements of karma and kindness in human relations, which makes listeners aware that friendship is a full circle activity.  Whereby being kind unto others, those same others will be kind to you.  In this way, Zeppelin makes it obvious that the idea of ‘friends’ is about awareness of more than just oneself.  To be a friend a person must open their conscious perception to include those within their immediate surroundings, “The greatest thing you ever can do now | is trade a smile with someone who’s blue now…” This lyric in the song makes it clear that a person has a duty to those around him to elevate each other.  If you make a point of smiling to others and giving a helping hand when you can, there is a good chance someone will be there to give you a hand up when you need it most.  In a karmic way – mutual recognition and respect for each other allows each life to become better off.

The idea that friendship is a type of love that overcomes despair is obvious in Zeppelin’s song.  The lyric “you got love, you ain’t lonely” indicates that if someone actively practices love they cannot be lonely.  Although being a friend may not always be easy, Zeppelin admits that by trying to be a friend you will help someone who will one day help you, “So anytime somebody needs you, don’t let them down, although it grieves you | Someday you’ll need someone like they do, looking for what you knew…“  The last line of that lyric seems to indicate that the singer was once contented with a friendship (based in love) and when the feeling was gone he truly knew what was lost.  Perhaps the singer was once dejected and had a friend to pick him up out of the gutter, or helped him find the happiness he once knew.

The melody of the song is very catchy and is repeated throughout the entire song.  This, along with progressive rhythm and harmony keeps listeners engaged through the four-minute song.  The acoustic chord progression seems to build over the entire song.  The mood of the song could be described as dark and mysterious with overtones of brightness.  The darkness is found in the muffled and indistinct lyrics; while the brightness is found in the unique power the background violin creates.  There are tinges of eastern influence found throughout the song, which add to the mystique of the song.  Together, the harmony, melody and progressive rhythm work to build a unique song about taking the time for friends.

Neil Young, “One of these Days”

One of these days,

I’m gonna sit down

and write a long letter

To all the good friends I’ve known

And I’m gonna try

And thank them all

for the good times together.

Though so apart we’ve grown.

One of these days,

I’m gonna sit down

and write a long letter

To all the good friends I’ve known

One of these days,

one of these days,

one of these days,

And it won’t be long, it won’t be long.

And I’m gonna thank,

That old country fiddler

And all those rough boys

Who play that rock ‘n’ roll

I never tried to burn any bridges

Though I know I let some good things go.

One of these days,

I’m gonna sit down

and write a long letter

To all the good friends I’ve known

One of these days,

one of these days,

one of these days,

And it won’t be long, it won’t be long.

From down in L.A.

All the way to Nashville,

From New York City

To my Canadian prairie home

My friends are scattered

Like leaves from an old maple.

Some are weak, some are strong.

One of these days,

I’m gonna sit down

and write a long letter

To all the good friends I’ve known

One of these days,

one of these days,

one of these days,

And it won’t be long, it won’t be long.

One of these days,

one of these days,

one of these days,

And it won’t be long, it won’t be long.

The song “One of These Days” could be considered a signature Neil Young piece.  His raw nasal tone, shrill guitar and highly personal lyrics blend to create the Young sound known to everyone.  The sound of the song comes across as being unique to Young’s repertoire where the listener can feel and appreciate his acquired smooth and beautiful voice.  This song is simply about maturity and the reflection that occurs as one gets older.  The song meanders, bouncing almost lazily along in a folk-country acoustic style, through a timeline of warm highlights and memories of friendship.

“One of these days” is a lyric repeated most often in the song, which indicates the singer wants to act on emotions that have been bottled up for some time.  It is as if he has thought about putting a letter together to send to his friends for quite some time, but has since never got around to it.   He remembers meeting people along his life’s journey and knows the personal impact each has had on his life.  Perhaps the best lyric is “I never tried to burn any bridges | though I know I let some good things go,” which indicates some regrets in his past actions towards friends.  This confessional tone makes the song very personal and relatable for listeners. It almost speaks between the lines – do not burn bridges because you never know what you have lost until it is gone.

The nostalgia of Young’s song writing is found in the ruminations of a somewhat regretful 46-year-old man.  It speaks to the passage of time, the fondness of days past and the need to reconcile.  Although it is questionable as to why the singer would write a letter and not use a telephone.  Perhaps because a letter is more personal; an endeavour that takes time and effort to create something that is truly unique and intended for one particular person.  Recognizing each friend as unique and deserving of a personalized letter is apparent in the lyric, “My friends are scattered | Like leaves from an old maple | some are weak, some are strong.” The comparison of friendship to a tree is interesting.  If the tree is thought of as an individual and the leaves as the many friends, there are many connotations that can be associated: Friendship is alive only when a connection exists the same way a leaf lives only when connected to the branch. Friendship is constantly changing with the seasons and conditions, similar to leaves falling in autumn and re-growing in spring. Friendship can be based on symbiotic or parasitic relationships, the many forms accommodate different types of friends from insects to birds. Like a tree friendship takes time to become strong but should always be flexible.  In this way, Neil Young personifies a tree into a symbol of friendship whereby each person is a tree within a forest of other trees.  The lyric “Though so apart we’ve grown,” reaffirms the symbol of friendship as a tree that can grow in many different directions.

Most importantly Young knows the need to maintain contact with even lost friends, “And I’m gonna try | and thank them all | for the good times together.”  Which indicates the singer wants to reconnect because of the importance of reminding each other of the good times past and the potential to reconnect and create new time together.

Overall, Neil Young’s song is steeped with nostalgia and comes across as being sweet without being overly sentimental.  The song simply hums along with a steady rhythm and no real progression in sound.  This may assert that good times have come and gone but regardless life is always moving forward at a steady and constant pace.

Bro Hymn – Pennywise

To all my friends, present past and beyond

Especially those who weren’t with us too long

Life is the most precious thing you can lose

While you were here the fun was never ending

Laugh a minute was only beginning

Canton, Colvin, Nichols, this one’s for you

Ever get the feeling you can’t go on

Just remember whose side it is that you’re on

You’ve got friends with you till the end

If you’re ever in a tough situation

We’ll be there with no hesitation

Brotherhood’s our rule we cannot bend

Whoa oh oh oh oooooooooooooooooooooh

When you’re feeling too close to the bottom

You know who it is you can count on

Someone will pick you up again

We can conquer anything together

All of us are bonded forever

If I die you die that’s the way it is

Whoa oh oh oh oooooooooooooooooooooh

To all my friends, present past and beyond

To all those who weren’t with us too long

Life is the most precious thing you can lose

While you were here the fun was never ending

Laugh a minute was only the beginning

Canton, Colvin, Nichols, this one’s for you

Whoa oh oh oh oooooooooooooooooooooh

Finally, “Bro Hymn Tribute” is a tragic song that could be considered an anchor of the group Pennywise to their true roots.  The song was originally found on the first full-length self-titled debut and is about a tribute to old friends.  In fact, the song was written in tribute to three friends of the band: Tim Colvin, Carlos Canton and Tom Nichols, all of whom passed away.  The song became more important to the band in 1996 when the bass player Jason Thirsk committed suicide after prolonged depression related to alcoholism.  Pennywise rerecorded the original song and re-released it in his honour – which truly makes this a special song for the band.

The song is presented in a catchy anthem-ic punk style that is simple enough for first time listeners to sing-along to.  The beat is constantly upbeat and the rhythm repeats the same progression.  The main message of the song is no matter what happens in life a true friend will be there, standing beside you in your times of need.  It establishes friendship as a form of family, which is governed by a universal law, “Brotherhood’s our rule we cannot bend.” While listening to the song, especially the live version, it is easy to imagine oneself hearing public declarations of friendship exchanged between half-drunk friends at a high school grad party.  In this way, the song is unforgettable and allows listeners to relate to the message of friendship.

The singer recognizes this song is for all the friends from the past, present and future.  It declares that “Life is the most precious thing you can lose | While you were here the fun was never ending.” This is a shout-out to Plato’s Republic whereby it recognizes that sacrificing one’s life for another is the highest good one can perform.  This song, however, does not reference a friend’s life lost at battle for the betterment of society, which was Plato’s original point.  Although, the song does establish that friends are what make life worthwhile, a conclusion that Aristotle contended.  It also expresses that through friendship “We can conquer anything together | All of us are bonded forever | If I die you die that’s the way it is.”  This seems to indicate that friendship is a bond that is eternal and is able to overcome any obstacle in life.

The emotion expressed in “Bro Hymn Tribute” is a reminder of the love that exists in friendship.  It is almost a call to attention of what friendship really means.  It makes clear that when a friend dies a little piece of yourself dies with them.  Where a true friend is considered family and that death does not diminish the bond but it does change it.  Originally, “Bro Hymn” was written by Thirsk, who would later commit suicide despite having close friends in the band who would have shared a similar bond as described by the song.  It makes me wonder how strong the bond of friendship really was for it to have such a tragic ending.  Perhaps this provides an implicit message of the song: sometimes you need to shout out to your friends; to communicate in a direct anthem exactly what you think and feel about your friends.  Sometimes such a declaration is the all the difference a friend needs to make life worth living.  By the end of the song, the listener is left with goose bumps and an enlightened sensation of exactly what you would do for your friend.

—

All three songs recognize the importance of friendship in life.  However, each artist provides a unique perspective on friendship.  Led Zeppelin sings of friendship as kindness through self-awareness and awareness of those around you.  There is a message of karma in the need to lift those around you higher – the need for recognition and respect to overcome despair in life.  Neil Young sings of the friendship as a living entity, like a tree.  There is an implicit and nostalgic need to connect with friends as a means of keeping such relationships alive and well.  While Pennywise present a view of friendship that is rooted in the idea of family.  Friendship is law-like and eternal.