In essence, foreign relations in Washington have to be conceptualized, framed, and then presented as a struggle or war between “freedom versus tyranny” not only to dispel any suspicion that there are racist connotations or sentiments attached to Washington’s foreign relations, but foreign relations have to be conceptualized, framed, and then presented in such a manner in order to cast a shadow over the fact and the reality that our system which is based on class disparity and individualism is incompatible which a collectivist system that requires the sharing of resources and social responsibility. What is central to our conceptualization and implementation of foreign relations is then concealed or overshadowed by rhetoric pertaining to a moral struggle or a perpetual struggle based on “freedom versus tyranny” and so forth.
But if we were to go even deeper than just the surface level of the incompatibility of basic organization, order, structures, and systems, what is at the heart of each system is a notion of human nature which differs from the other. In other words, human nature is viewed differently in each system, and in turn, the difference in the way human nature is viewed in each system leads to the incompatibility of the two systems. This is essentially what is at the heart of everything, namely, the issue of man’s nature and in turn man’s relationship with reality based on human nature.
It has been argued: “All studies of man, from history to linguistics and psychology, are faced with the question of whether, in the last instance, we are the product of all kinds of external factors, or if, in spite of our differences, we have something we could call a common human nature, by which we can recognize each other as human beings.”
As Noam Chomsky noted, what man is essentially prompted to do is to derive “organized knowledge” and a “schematism” to assess reality based on the limitations and scarce quantity of data and experience which man garners through the course of his life. And it is this organized knowledge and “schematism” of assessing reality which guides human behavior and in turn, it is human behavior which determines our concept of “human nature.” As a result, human nature is dynamic. Human nature can change based on one’s circumstances, experiences, data, and knowledge.
Foucault went further by arguing that human nature is “epistemological” at its very heart, which suggests that the scope of our concepts, discourse, and ideas determine human nature. As a result, if we are to assess the core difference between our system and a collectivist system, what the core difference amounts to is essentially an epistemological difference which is at the heart of our present-day dilemma or predicament and thus the incompatibility of our respective systems.
Hence, not only is our conclusion or inference that the incompatibility between our system and a collectivist system is a matter of epistemology or the scope of our concepts, discourse, and ideas an important and significant one, but it is a conclusion or inference whereby if we were to digest and then act upon it, the changes and the reforms which would result from such a conclusion and inference on a systemic level would be profound. Moreover, the constructivist assumption that international relations or even interpersonal relations are determined by a “learning process” has much to do with the epistemological basis of what we are concerned with in our discussion and our discourse.