Just how small is this world really? An application of small world theory to the study of globalization

Abstract Inspired by recent research on the dynamics of ‘small‐world’ networks, in this article I apply its basic arguments and findings to the study of integrative processes in the international system. Employing the logic of network models we can learn, by analogy, from fields as diverse as neural science and forest fire prevention, much about the likely changes caused in the international political environment by increased interaction among its various units. I first explain recent developments in network theory and demonstrate their relevance for the study of international politics and economics. I then develop the most important insights to be transferred from network theory to the study of globalization. Network theory suggests that our world truly ‘shrinks’ only to the extent that relations among international actors cross pre‐existing alliances or cooperative arrangements. Making the world a single place seems to require flexibility in forming attachments with other actors which goes beyond culturally and historically justified efforts at exchange and cooperation.     

Goals of Action and Emotional Reasons for Action. A Modern Version of the Theory of Ultimate Psychological Hedonism

In this paper we present a modern version of the classic theory of “ultimate psychological hedonism” (UPH). As does the UPH, our two‐dimensional model of metatelic orientations also postulates a fundamentally hedonistic motivation for any human action. However, it makes a distinction between “telic” or content‐based goals of actions and “metatelic” or emotional reasons for actions. In our view, only the emotional reasons for action, but not the goals of action, conform to the UPH. After outlining our model, we will elucidate the similarities and differences between our model and classic UPH. In this context we will clarify several basic misconceptions regarding classic UPH. In a next step, two major criticisms of the theory of ultimate psychological hedonism will be discussed, that is (1) the statement that the hedonistic principle has no motivating effect at all and (2) the argument that the hedonistic motivation is only one of many motivations of human actions. We believe that both of these arguments can be refuted. Finally, we will discuss the compatibility of our model with evolutionary theory.