Pragmatic Foundations in Cooperative Dynamics: A Reflective Analysis ()
1. Introduction
We are witnessing a time when diplomacy, cooperation and trade are closely linked like never before. Events and goals of powerful countries have a major impact on global processes and outcomes. Although experts in the fields of politics, economics and strategy debate which countries will dominate in the future, it is clear that the unipolar era is over (Olemanu et al., 2022). The essential characteristic of great powers is the constant search for ways to increase their power in the global system, with the ultimate goal of achieving hegemony (Mearsheimer, 2001). Nevertheless, cooperation is one of the means of establishment of stability and peace regionally and worldwide. Well-defined principles of cooperation, on the regional and international platform, represent the foundation of security in the distribution of goods and services, but also of the sustainability of peace. States have no longer a role only to play in defining foreign policy and international relations alone (Imširović, 2023). International institutions, agencies, large corporations, as well as practice, habits, and pragmatism are significant sharpeners of international relations, politics, cooperation and trade. In addition, diplomacy has been raised to the very top in international relations in all segments. Presidents often participate in events that are not within the constitution, or are not on the agenda, but due to the importance of cooperation, through projects or investment, security, pragmatism, habits, and economic priorities simply require the action. Presidents of states often confirm their strategic interest in a certain environment with their presence, often accompanied by pragmatic actions through cooperation agreements, exchange acts. China mainly monitors its region of interest through strategic cooperation involving many actors, from the visit of the President to the opening of Confucius Institutes. While the U.S. its pragmatic approach is reflected in its adaptability to the security context. This kind of pragmatism comes from the reflection of many years of experience and self-correction. To what extent pragmatism and ingrained habits of cooperation support the practice and pragmatism of diplomacy that was taken over or left from the previous systems in the country, is best seen in the countries of the former Yugoslavia, BiH and Serbia. The economic form of cooperation is part of international relations, regardless of the fact that in the late eighties, the American interest in economic cooperation rose sharply. This heightened desire to coordinate economic policy with other major economic powers is partly a response to the particular problems of the 1980s: sharp exchange rate fluctuations, large changes in the trade balance, and explosive debt growth among many developing countries. Nevertheless, expanded international economic cooperation and expanded intrigued are reflected within the world economy (Feldstein, 1988). A well-organized policy of cooperation as well as a principle definition in the exchange of goods and services in the world is a basic approach what turns into practice over time. Whether it is a private enterprise or a state corporation, both are of interest to the state, both contribute to the growth or decline of profits, so it often includes diplomacy as means of action. World is still today in its infancy since the fall of the Berlin Wall, diplomacy is one of the most significant places in the world to “gain profit” in last 30 years. Cooperation is the colloquial definition of participation as “an act or occasion of working or acting together for a common reason or advantage joint action”, conceptualized within the cross-cultural interaction (Zagumny, 2019). Cooperation is often influenced by various factors, as habit, pragmatism, or lack of insufficient practice or habit, like in countries that have changed the political system from one to another as BiH and Serbia did. The change from a communist system to a democratic capitalist system is a challenge that has inconsistencies and shortcomings. Different ethnic background, culture and religion have left their mark on the history of the administration in the countries of the former Yugoslavia along with. The rule of Josip Broz Tito (1892-1953) was similar and identified with the rule of Joseph Visarionovich Stalin (1879-1953) in the Soviet Union with the interpretation of the Marxist idea of the state (Boeckh, 2006). Cooperation in these countries during their existence in Yugoslavia was subordinated by the goals of the communist party. Cooperation today can sharpen and enhance relationships even stronger, and at a higher level than it was before world wars. States are today in a higher connected globalized world what it was not the case before the Second World War. Cooperation gained special significance after the fall of the bipolar world and the disappearance of the Berlin Wall as the dividing line between two worlds, East and West. The philosophy of American pragmatism began to develop, and offer explanations of the approach to cooperation, trade and foreign policy. Bearing in mind that the definition of cooperation between states is primarily guided by their domestic structure. State policy is one way for interaction in the international community. Nevertheless, state policy is often based largely on the result of habits that have grown into practice. Serbia and BiH, have the interaction of diplomatic relations with neighboring countries, but also with countries of their interests. As both follow Euro-Atlantic integration policy, they align their regulations accordingly. But not only, although BiH bases its foreign policy exclusively on integration into Euro-Atlantic initiative, Serbia bases its foreign policy on Four pillars of foreign policy with the focuses on the development and improvement of cooperation with four world powers, the U.S., China, Russia and the EU. Relying on the inherited policy of “non-aligned” pragmatic approach from former Yugoslavia, the practice was inherited in an adapted form. Nonetheless, Belgrade was in the era of Yugoslavia the seat of diplomacy well known as such in the world. While due to the complexity of political systems or inherited practices of the previous system which were difficult to harmonize with modern trends, BiH remains inconsistent in agreements. I believe that the theory of pragmatism if is it practiced in its best understanding could bring success in the cooperation development. The assumption is that practice and habit require experience, knowledge and openness. Looking at the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is clear why it is struggling to adapt one or another policy wholly. The country has been under “someone's” rule for the last 500 years from where the difficulties arise to cope own political system. For the first time in years it relied on itself after the break-up of Yugoslavia. One of the basic obstacles is primarily the lack of long-term knowledge and experience. Serbia, on the other hand, was the center of government in the former Yugoslavia, as well as the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and throughout history has had a very strong independent government orientation. However, Society in Bosnia and Herzegovina is composed mostly of three ethnic groups (Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats), while in Serbia (Serbs) one ethnic group predominates. Each of these groups in both countries with strong dominance in BiH have their own political permissions and interests in the system. Ethnic groups represent own interests in the state. Their pragmatism is the reflection of their circumstances and situations. This paper aims to bring out understanding of the role of pragmatism in the reflexive behavior of a community or ethnic group, and its interaction in cooperation, looking at the example of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia comparatively.
2. Pragmatic Reflections: Unpacking
Pragmatism is quite new in international relations and foreign policy. Appeared in scientific discussions only a few years ago in international relations, although was present. Pragmatism reconstructs theories in the set of people’s thought and action. In international relations it is most often associated with other theories, constructivism, idealism, liberalism. By reconstructing thoughts and actions, we come to applied results. Reconstructive analysis leads to its application in international relations, where well-developed relations encourage successful cooperation or peaceful coexistence in the international system. Pragmatism is dealing in certain situations in a reasonable and logical way of doing or thinking instead of being based on ideas and theories. It represents a practical approach to problems and situations. Truth is tested primarily by the practical consequences of belief. Being pragmatic does not mean only being realistic or practical, it is a way of thinking (Bauer & Brighi, 2008). Steve Smith wrote an introduction to International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (1996), and posed the question: “If we want to open an epistemological space for alternatives to an international relation based on empiricism, what other epistemologies are available?” Smith offered two options: discredited rationalism or pragmatism. At the time, there was little pragmatism in sight in his exploration of post-positivist approaches to IR. Today it is different, Jörg Friedrichs (Friedrichs, 2016) and Fredrick Kratochwil proposed a program to introduce an alternative methodological approach to IR based on American pragmatism that could “reconcile scientific inquiry with the requirements of practical reason” (Cochran, 2012). Jörg Friedrichs and Fredrick Kratochwil in their prominent paper On Acting and Knowing: How Pragmatism Can Advance International Relations Research and Methodology mention three variants of pragmatist methodology in recent IR scholarships: synthesis of theory, analytical eclecticism, and abduction. They are interested in pragmatism as an instrument for research realization with an appropriate degree of epistemological and methodological awareness (Friedrichs & Kratochwil, 2009). Article is significant because it opens the door to an approach to pragmatism in international relations. Although, pragmatism is not something new. It has been much discussed in philosophy as a tradition to propose as a way out of various quagmires (Friedrichs & Kratochwil, 2009).
3. A Comprehensive Analysis: From Theory to Practice
In order to understand what pragmatism means for example, in the trade relationship between China and the country of Southeast Europe, Serbia and BiH, it is necessary, first to consider pragmatism philosophically, the second presence of pragmatism in international relations, then how much it is reflected in the approach of trade cooperation. I believe, that the cultural environment affects an individual, who is a part of particular community, creates norms that are reflected in interethnic relations, and thus in the society, which is again reflected in cooperation, diplomacy, trade relations as well as any other segment of life. Each statement of the patient, for example, can significantly influence the diagnosis made by the doctors, which can result in the adjustment of the therapy. Also, every statement made by the doctor can have a crucial impact on the outcome for the patients. An effective dialogue between doctor and patient can enable the doctor to accurately and quickly make a diagnosis, which allows patients to receive appropriate therapy in time (Liang, & Du 2019). Despite, the pragmatism that arose in Serbia and partly in BiH after the breakup of Yugoslavia, as well as in China, relies on the pragmatism of the commune. This means that the behavior will be consistent with the interaction of the community. Which is the goal in a communist environment. After the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) and the improvement of free trade with the liberalization of the market diplomacy gained another dimension. Nevertheless, the analysis or adaptation of the theoretical approach, like everything else, often depended on the current status. This is especially pronounced in the countries of the former Yugoslavia. Given that Serbia has managed to resist to some extent and reflect according to its established habits or traditions in most cases, especially in trade and diplomacy. Serbia has established more functional cooperation with the countries of the East and the West. Accordingly, they developed their foreign policy. In Serbia, foreign policy is based on four pillars policy. These four pillars represent the four superpowers: the US, China, Russia and the EU, while in Bosnia and Herzegovina foreign policy is completely oriented towards Euro-Atlantic integration. Nevertheless, in Serbia and BiH Constitutions are often violated by approaching and resolving problems. Habits inherited from previous system and the situation of the environment often call into question the views of the Constitution. In addition, developing countries are often not aware due to political complexity that diplomacy is a highly ranked tool today to use to achieve own goals and interests in the international arena. Diplomacy does not change in essence, only the situations and circumstances under which it operates, ie its environment, change. International dependence, and an increase in the membership of the international community have also increased the usefulness of diplomacy (Vukadinović, 1994). With a greater focus on pragmatism reflected in diplomacy, and thus in trade itself, countries could overcome difficulties. A good example of pragmatism throughout tradition is the United States. Gergana Tzvetkova points out three basic dominant features of pragmatism that are important for formulating foreign policy: the importance of knowledge, problem-solving, and finding creative solutions to serious problems with overcome by balancing action and meaning (Tzvetkova, 2018). The United States has all three developed at the highest level. Nevertheless, China too. On the other hand, any problem-solving solution can be seen as specific, and not universal. In this process are individuals significant who are constantly considering the variations and complexities of the problems they are surrounded by. Policymakers often need to make quick decisions when creating even though they do not have all the necessary information and be aware of the consequences which may come with (Tzvetkova, 2018). Means that they will often create decisions within their space of dominance, their psychological state or their environment, of which they are a reflection. This is how politicians, diplomats, traders do it in the environment of their interaction. Pragmatism has not been given much significance within the past, neither in universal relations nor in remote arrangement examination. Although, pragmatism is characterized as one of the most important social sciences, the European view of the development of pragmatism often expresses different attitudes while U.S. is associated with “exact sciences” and epistemological bases inferred from coherent experimentation looking back on the one hand, and political authenticity on the opposite—both are at their center (Hellmann et al., 2009). Until the mid-1990s attention to pragmatism was drawn at a time, but scholars were focusing on the dualism that separated human activity from internally related transformations at the global level of political interaction. German foreign policy illustrates how the established “paradigms” struggle with “change” and “continuity” after the unification of the countries in 1990 and how pragmatism was mobilized as a theoretical resource to respond to all the challenges that arose (Franke & Hellmann, 2017). From 2002 to 2009 logic was displayed in a bigger version, and the subject of methodological and epistemological discourse in international relations (Friedrichs & Kratochwil, 2009). The center of pragmatism is the primacy of practice. Concurring to this principle, the certainty of person as well as collective action is to be thought of as the vital beginning point of any theorizing almost thought and action. Most of social actions are habitualized. As William James put it our convictions live “on a credit framework” they “pass” so long as nothing challenges them (Hellmann et al., 2009). In conventional discourse, a “pragmatist” is somebody (often a politician) who is willing to settle for a glass half purge when standing on guideline debilitates to realize less. Down to earth individuals are concerned over all down to earth comes about, they have a “can do” state of mind and are anxious with those of a “should do” disposition who never appear to urge anything done. Americans are frequently said to be an especially practical individual (Ralston, 2010). Pragmatists believe that philosophical research must be closely related to practice in order to be useful and that practice serves as a source of social norms. As a growing alternative to analytical and continental philosophical traditions, pragmatism is very conducive to the study of business ethics, but its role remains underestimated. American pragmatism may be a philosophical school of thought which risen within the late 19th century, related with creators such as Charles Puncture, William James and John Dewey, whose center component was the dismissal of realism and observation. In spite of the fact that pragmatism touches upon an assortment of philosophical spaces, from reasoning of science, aesthetics and logic of intellect Cheryl Misak’s (2013) argue that the concern will be with what may be called the practical person “theory of truth”, particularly the adaptation of William James (2010) which can be summarized as follows: “Any thought upon which we are able to ride, so to talk, any thought that will carry us prosperously from any one portion of our encounter to any other portion connecting things satisfactorily, working safely, streamlining, sparing labor is genuine for fair so much, genuine in so distant forward, genuine instrumentals typically as an instrumental view of truth” (Paiva-Silva, 2020). As a special social theory, pragmatism begins with exactly what people do primarily from practice and understands them more as tools for coping. William James (2010) emphasizes the unity of research to solve problems, does not distinguish between thought or theory, and action or practice as separate activities (Franke & Hellmann, 2017). Logic speaks to a significant evaluate of the theory-oriented standard. It interfaces re-contextualized (hypothetically centered) knowledge with life practice. While C. S. Peirce offers a rationale by which this basic elucidation can be realized (Hellmann et al., 2009). Charles S. Peirce gave cautious thought to pragmatism contending both, experience driven, and reason driven request. Peirce gave less stained thought to morals, although it is obvious that he thought that’s as well is responsive to encounter and contention. When we deliberate almost what we thought to do, we take our beliefs to be responsive to reasons, contention, thought tests, and first person involvement. We attempt to put ourselves within the shoes of others, to broaden our skylines, to tune in to the arguments of the other side. That’s portion of what it is to create an ethical choice, and portion of what it is to undertake to live an ethical life. It would not be an ethical life—it would not be locked in with the complexities of ethical requirements in case we essentially made our choices approximately on how to treat others by taking after (Misak, 2005). Nevertheless, the situation under which our environment has developed and in which environment we find ourselves should be taken into account along with. Long after, and partially today, Serbia retained habits it had during the communist political system in the former Yugoslavia. The retained system of habits is automatically reflected in the new system. Still, today in Serbia, are present, years after the establishment of the new democratic system, inconsistencies in the presentation of the Constitution. In the first two decades of the Yugoslav era after the breakup of Yugoslavia, Serbia had domestic problems, was unstable for foreign investments. There were no foreign financial experts, especially not in the framework of the privatization of state ownership. Since 2006, the Government of Serbia has started providing a package of subsidies to encourage foreign investors, which was extended until 2010. However, a significant role was played by Boris Tadić who, under the auspices of his administration, reversed the course that had been led by Slobodan Milošević until that moment, and presented a Four pillar foreign policy (Imširović, 2023). Tadić's approach to foreign policy was new and refreshing compared to what existed before his administration. Tadić was born in Sarajevo, BiH, but completed his education in Belgrade, where he lived and worked after. Tadić founded, and was the first director of the “Center for the Development of Democracy and Political Skills is Serbia.” His understanding of the region accordance with current trends was far broader than his predecessors, which was reflected in his leadership. His pragmatism comes from the reflection of environment of interaction. A set of behaviors that are reflected in the environment of his interaction is reflected in the orientation of his work. On the other side, BiH lost the entire previous political system after breakup of Yugoslavia, and the people who ran the system. Administrative approaches and habits remained, but given that there was a war in BiH that changed the political system as well as everything that came with, little could rely on habits that would be established or a base from which to continue. Given that the ruling elite that established a new political system under the leadership of BiH's first president, Alija Izetbegović, was the ruling political party that had just gained freedom of expression and leadership of the Bosniak political system during the war. Which means that BiH ran away from everything that was previously practiced not only in politics, but also in all spheres of life and turned to completely new values of liberal democracy over all the values of the commune that were the only ones recognized until then. Accordingly, new habits were brought by people who progressively tried to preserve the state from their surroundings. Later, this political system and this political party continued to be led by the hereditary elite as part of the Dayton Agreement after the end of the war. Although far from habits and practices inherited by Serbia, BiH found itself in the circle of awakening national consciousness. Long condensation in the former Yugoslavia dictated the development of consciousness and ethnicity after the breakup. Liberal democracy leads to a radical and progressive development of national and ethnic consciousness along with a sense of belonging. Nevertheless, differences between Serbia and BiH in performing habits inheritance from previous political system before the breakup of Yugoslavia are clearly visible. Although BiH has undergone major profound changes caused by the war, it is clear why it is more difficult to perform pragmatism that would be imbued with inherited habits or tradition. While Serbia did not have a basic war on its territory, and was centralized state in the former Yugoslavia with its strong political habits. Pragmatism arises from practice, and practice from continuous attribution. Sudden interruptions in action and redefinition of status lead to the departure of stability and familiarity. As Gergan Tzvetkov offered three based impacts in pragmatism: the importance of knowledge, problem solving, and creative solutions to problems. For the countries of the case of analysis, all three of these points require recognition in domestic interaction. About which Bosnia and Herzegovina is still struggling, but Serbia is somewhat closer. However, Charles Pierce did not write about international relations, but his idea of pragmatism is, and the philosophical approach leads continuously to thinking and creating the theory of pragmatism in IR. William James and John Dewey followed the idea of pragmatism in international relations further. Peirce and James express pragmatism interplay as “that beliefs are rules for action” which many pragmatists have used later on (Hellmann, 2009). The word “pragma” is from where pragmatism originated meaning action, and it is in the center of the very meaning of the concept of pragmatism. Human deeds can never be separated from the acquired (past) experience, as well as the beliefs that arose from all that past and experienced doing of experience is considered a pragmatist philosophy. Our action is essentially related to our thoughts. We take action based on the possible consequences of our actions, and we use the result of our actions to predict the consequences of similar actions in our future. The meaning of human actions and beliefs is in their consequences the main thesis of pragmatic philosophy. It is up to us as an individual what the outcome will be. If, as an individual, we aim at a collective and thus the whole collective acts at its peak, we will have a reflection of our work. Reality is not static, it changes at every step and every second, pragmatists believe. Thus, our world in which we live is not static, it is in a constant state of emergence and change, shaping and adapting. It is action that change our world. We change our existence by our action. In this regard, actions are in the role of intermediaries. They are the key to pragmatism (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019). The rejection of traditional assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge and research was a turning point in the beginning of the pragmatism movement. What is important for pragmatists is the rejection of the idea that the research of the social sciences can be approached only by starting the research of only one scientific method. Specificity is a combination of experience and knowledge (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019). The founder of Pragmatism, Charles S. Peirce, understood the historical context of appearance of Cartesianism (Britannica, 2021). Descartes revolted against authority as the ultimate source of truth and allowed theoretically skepticism. Afterwards what he did is the search for a natural source of human aspirations and principles, and he thought it could be found in the human mind (Peirce, 1982). Focusing on this approach, it is inevitable to realize that the role of observation is underestimated, while the role of human opinion is at least overestimated.
4. An Extensive Philosophical Analysis: “Social Reality is a Reality of Beliefs and Habits”
According to Peirce, we cannot doubt in everything: A person may, it is true, in the course of his studies, in what belief has begun to develop reasons for doubt, which at that moment has a positive reason, but not because of the “Cartesian maximum”. Assessing that “the machinery of the mind can only transform knowledge, but never produce it” unless it be fed with facts of observation pointed out Peirce. If we continue to analyze the definition continuously, we will not learn anything new. He noted that it is more in line with the personal system to focus on revealing facts than on examining beliefs. It is difficult to convince a follower of the a priori method by stating the facts. Closely related to the “notion of belief” is the “notion of habit”. Belief “involves the establishment in our nature of rules of action, or habits. The whole function thinks to produce habits of action. In order to develop its meaning, we must, therefore, simply determine which habits it involves. For Peirce, belief is not a current form of consciousness, it is a habit of the mind that essentially lasts for some time. Instead of saying that you want to know the “Truth”, you simply said that you want to achieve a state of belief that is untouchably doubtful. Based on Peirce’s pragmatism, one can say that social reality is a reality of beliefs and habits. It means that this reality is socially constructed by the processes of institutionalization, legitimation and socialization (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). The social reality is historical: Institutions cannot be created instantaneously. Institutions always have a history of which they are the products. In order to understand the institution best, we need to understand the historical context of the process of its emergence (Yefimov, 2013). Peirce discovered a logic of science in which, in addition to deduction and induction, he considered the logical operation called abduction: Abduction is the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis. It is the only logical operation, which introduces any new idea, deduction merely evolves the necessary consequences of a pure hypothesis. Abduction merely suggests that something may be. Its only justification is that from its suggestion deduction can draw a prediction which can be tested by induction and that, if we are ever to learn anything or to understand phenomena at all, it must be by abduction that this is to be brought about. The adductive suggestion comes to us like a flash. It is an act of insight, although of extremely fallible insight. It is true that the different elements of the hypothesis were in our minds before, but it is the idea of putting together what we had never before dreamed of putting together which flashes the new suggestion before our contemplation. Peirce characterized his doctrine of pragmatism as the true Logic of Abduction. Contrary to Cartesianism the pragmatism attributed a modest role in human reasoning to deduction. The modern cognition science supports this position of pragmatism (Yefimov, 2013). David L. Morgan uses the work of John Dewey (Morgan, 2014) to develop his approach to pragmatism and identifies three widely shared ideas of pragmatism (Schilpp, 1923). Pragmatists focus on the nature of experience while other philosophers emphasize the nature of reality. We go from, first of all, every action we are surrounded by or in which we can isolate ourselves, from the situation and context of which it is an integral part and where it happens. It is a world of unique human experiences where in the place of universal truth there are justified beliefs shaped precisely by the way we react in similar situations and when experiencing outcomes. What makes our legitimate beliefs are the outcomes that have emerged from predictable experiences. Then, secondly, they could understand, “that actions are ultimately related to consequences precisely in ways that are open to change”, in other words, if the action situation changes their consequences would also change, regardless of whether the wounds are the same. The philosophy of pragmatism convinces us that it is impossible to experience exactly the same situation twice, so all our justified beliefs about a possible outcome are equally temporary, which means that our belief about how to behave in a situation is inherently temporary. Which we will reflect on in a unique way in the world around us all over again. The approach to politics, trade and international relations of Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić is often called “new pragmatism”. In recent years, Serbia has experienced a rise in diplomacy, international relations and cooperation. This rise was especially emphasized by the administration of President Vučić. Vučić administration has made many changes in politics and diplomacy. Serbia moved from Milošević's understanding of leadership and the rest of the habits of the rule of the former Yugoslavia. Finally, “actions depend on worldviews that are a socially shared set of beliefs.” No two people with completely identical experiences are considered pragmatists, so their views of the world cannot be identical either. Long and the same applied can cause problems, while new and different can encourage progress. When we are in a continuous process of this circulation, progress is continuous. One of the best examples is the United States. Over years at the very top of world politics. There are always different degrees of shared experiences between any two people that lead to different degrees of shared beliefs. The likelihood of acting in the same way in a similar situation and attributing similar meanings to the consequences of those actions depends on the degree of shared belief in that particular situation. Therefore, worldviews can be both individually unique and socially shared (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019). To what extent the pragmatism of the individual (politician) is reflected in the performance and action in Serbia and BiH is sharpened by the environment in which they find themselves. The approach of the individual in both Serbia and BiH is guided by personal manner and style. The Pragmatism gives us the key to understanding social realities by indicating that they are beliefs and habits. By institutions is meant, their relation to beliefs, and propose a scheme for analysis of economic activity in order to indicate the place of institutions and beliefs in this activity (Yefimov, 2013). The way in which Pragmatism and International Relations are liked lies in the spirit of diversity in the practice of the pragmatic tradition. Pragmatism emphasis on a coherent theory of action beliefs as rules for action in international relations. The primacy lies in practice. The actions of an individual such as politicians or representatives connect the basic principles of pragmatism within international relations. All the actions that take place are the starting point of pragmatism in international relations. Most social actions have just been habitualized. Our beliefs are alive as long as they pass, and are not hindered by anything.
5. Pragmatism in Navigating Social Variations
Interaction is reflected in the context of the principles and actions of the environment. While in China one of the factors in interpersonal interaction is to “save face”, in other environments interpersonal interaction takes place in the context of one's individuality, “be it truth or not”. Chinese culture is known for its restraint and the importance it places on preserving one’s reputation. People avoid situations where they might lose their face. Nevertheless, in that respect spokespeople, as politicians, diplomats like any other are no different. When they find themselves in a situation where any answer can lead to a loss of reputation—face, they prefer not to answer. Directly refusing a question or apologizing can be reputational, but implicit and indirect answers reduce the potential damage of a direct confrontation. Therefore, they give incomplete answers in order to preserve their reputation, the reputation of their organization and the reputation of important shareholders (Zhang, 2021). Interaction with the approach is pragmatic. In developing countries, ethnic differences are often conflicts of interest. Interethnic misunderstandings are often not only visible, but continuously challenging progress and development. These misunderstandings are influenced by many factors in addition to insufficiently developed education, a stable political system and the improvement of the organization of the promotion of cultures, participation in the international community development. Richard Rorty finds the concept of practicality in whose plan social boundaries are represented by critical works. Rorty contends for 1) an “ethnocentric” conception of contention and legitimization in politics, 2) ethical commitments as resting on specific nearby shapes of distinguishing proof and dependability, 3) claimed that ethical distinguishing proof, and consequently dependability is bounded. Nevertheless, Rorty recommend ways in which these boundaries can be overcome without falling foul of the allurement to embrace an Archimedean point outside all local standards and practices (Bauer & Brighi, 2008). BiH is often exposed to the practical behavior of their main three ethnic groups. In May 2018, Turkish President Erdogan held his first election rally in Sarajevo. “There are extremely good personal ties between the current leadership of the Party of Democratic Action (SDA), Bakir Izetbegović and Recep Tayyip Erdogan”, Adnan Huskić said, adding that Bosnia is important to the Turkish leader because of his historical ties. While in Serbia, one of the significant influences is Russia until the Serbian Progressive Party came to power with the current president Aleksandar Vučić, while before, bilateral ties between Russia and Serbia were at a much lower level (Radiokameleon.ba, 2022). Ethnicity in the countries of the former Yugoslavia have often been associated with religious affiliation due to intertwined history. However, religion does not have to be directly related to an ethnic group. Samuel P. Huntington in his book Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking World Order (1996) argues that after the disintegration of the Soviet Council and the fall of the Invisible Wall between East and West the world became more multicultural than ever before in history. Huntington claims that people began to define themselves more on the basis of the origin of language, religion and customs. Differences between people are not reflected primarily in ideology or economics, but in culture. World politics are formed on the basis of cultural lines, creating new patterns of conflict and cooperation (Huntington, 1996). BiH is geopolitically in between Western (Christian), Slavic-Orthodox and Islamic civilizations (Huntington, 1996). Huntington connects civilizational religions and argues that most people will go to war if they differ religiously, regardless of the fact that they speak the same language and share even ethnicity. In BiH peoples have different ethnicities, religions and languages. Huntington sees Bosnia as one of the “fault lines” and as an example of this concept. Both nation and civilization can be used to provoke wars or conflicts. Huntington further points out that the types of wars that took place in BiH or the former Yugoslavia are happening within the state they are longer and more violent than those that take place between states. However, other analysts do not fully confirm this concept of war in Bosnia, but point out that the religious factor does not have to be the source of the war in any case (Bieber, 1999). Nevertheless, it is not so easy to identify people religiously, especially in countries with a complex history such as the countries of the former Yugoslavia, BiH and Serbia. Huntington’s theory would be an “instant theory”. In Bosnia, the ethnic group Bosniaks is one of the Islamic religion and they are Muslims, but they are not of Arab or Turkish descent, and very possibly not even Slavs. Since before the arrival of the Slavs in Bosnia areas were Goths, Illyrians and other tribes. The war in BiH was not a religious war, although the dominant religious groups belonged to one ethnic group. The war in BiH was civil within groups with different goals within this territory (Imširović, 2023). It is certainly not the ethnicity of ethnic groups from BiH and Serbia that is fully reflected in the groups in Turkey and Russia, but the rapprochement with regard to all other elements that have influenced these groups, religious, traditional, cultural, historical. Rorty’s “ethnocentric” political contention is that predominance of specific (liberal, democratic, rights-supporting) political angle does not comprise in its being prevalent agreeing to any guidelines but the measures of those who hold this kind of perspective (Bauer & Brighi, 2008). When it comes to what the three ethnic groups think of each other in BiH, Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, a study by Friedrich, Ebert, Stiftung (2011) shows that these peoples know little about each other and have relatively little interest in each other, although for centuries living together in one state. Their perception is still relatively burdened by events that have taken place in the past. And their opinion is mostly formed from the media, according to which ethnic group follows which media. Travel within the state as well as the exchange of various forms is very weak within the state (Skoko, 2011).
6. Pragmatic Dynamics: The Core of Cooperation
Borders and distances are no longer relevant when capital, goods and information circulate around the world. The goals, strategic interests and results of major powers significantly influence the processes and outcomes of the international system (Olemanu et al., 2022). Nevertheless, in the context of interaction a new reality creates a new context. Pragmatism, as a philosophical tradition, emphasizes the practical consequences of belief and action, reflecting our action from our being. Central to this approach is the idea that the habits and behaviors of individuals are shaped by their interactions with the environment and the outcomes of their actions. In a pragmatic framework, the role of government becomes crucial in creating the conditions that promote beneficial habits and behaviors among individuals. Thus, everyone will create what they are made of. Politicians will operate in the environment of their behavioral interaction. A strong and stable government, regardless of its political system, according to pragmatism, should act to foster environments in which cooperative and constructive behavior is encouraged. This coincides with the views of Thomas Hobbes, who argued in “Leviathan” that in the absence of a powerful authority, individuals would act solely on the basis of self-interest, leading to a “state of nature” characterized by chaos and conflict. Hobbes advocated a strong, centralized government that would ensure social order and cooperation among individuals. Pragmatism suggests that by establishing reliable institutions and norms, a strong government can create an environment in which cooperative behavior becomes a common choice for individuals. Which will also be reflected in interstate cooperation. By ensuring that cooperative actions are consistently rewarded and that betrayals are adequately punished, government can align individual behavior with the collective good. This practical application of pragmatic principles ensures that individuals internalize habits that promote social cohesion and mutual benefit. Nevertheless, the thought of cooperation started to create worldwide scene while at the point caught on as a help or exchange of assets—by way of grants—from nation to nation which due to their level of wage and dubious living standards could be classified as underdeveloped. The concept of universal cooperation has advanced to secure a more common meaning. This can be essentially in answer to the expanding complexity which as now combines the concept of help and solidarity with commercial promotion and political interface (O’Farrill et al., 1999). Following this direction international cooperation should be understood as “a set of actions aimed at trying to coordinate policy or to join forces in order to achieve their common goals in the international sphere” (Insulza, 1998). Along with, Hobbes argued that the state of nature was dominated, before governments existed, by the problem of egotistical people who competed on such heartless terms that life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. In his point of view, cooperation could not develop without a central authority, and consequently a strong government was necessary. Ever since, contentions approximately the correct scope of government has regularly centered on whether one may or might not anticipate cooperation to emerge in a specific space in case there were no authority to police in the circumstance (Axelrod, 1984). Cooperation is interwoven with personal interests. In one country the associate is based on state rules and state regulations, taxes, as well as all accompanying regulatory units that are prescribed by laws and regulations. No certainly in the process of developing cooperation under all laws legal practices prevail. There is a practice that integrates the relevant rules and norms prescribed by the state in relation to the situation in which it is currently applied. This environment establishes navigation in the middle. And yet the habit in the middle can be identified with personal, but also with collective interests. The reason for assuming self-interest is that it permits an examination of the troublesome case in which cooperation is not completely based upon a concern for others or upon the welfare of the group as an entire. It must be that as it may be pushed that this assumption is really much less prohibitive than it appears (Axelrod, 1984). This happens when the interest of self-interest by each leads to a destitute result for all. To create progress in understanding the tremendous cluster of particular circumstances which have this property a way is required to speak to what is common to these situations without getting to be impeded down within the points of interest interesting to each. There’s such a representation accessible Prisoner’s Dilemma game. The Prisoner’s Dilemma has two players and each of them can have two choices with orientation on a specific job or lack. Each of these players must make an election knowing what the others will do. No matter what the other does surrender yields a better payoff than participation. The situation is that on the off chance that both imperfection, do worse than in the event that both had coordinated (Axelrod, 1984). What could sustain joint cooperation are the strategies that have been provoked (Axelrod, 1984). Pragmatism, with its focus on practical results, supports the need for a strong government to shape the habits and behaviors of individuals. Drawing on insights from Hobbes and the prisoner’s dilemma, it becomes apparent that such governance can foster an environment conducive to cooperation and social well-being. This pragmatic approach emphasizes the interaction between individual actions, institutional structures, and the overarching need for a stable and cooperative society. However, we live in a world system with a “new reality”, which is changing minute by minute and has a direct impact on all matters of international cooperation (O’Farrill et al., 1999). Major components in the process of change, are: a.) The world order we have known so far has been led by globalization that increases interdependence, intercommunication, and interaction between government as well as national respect for social order. b.) Freedom in the exchange of goods and services, the liberalization of world trade arose in its very development of interdependence and meeting the needs and requirements of world economies, bringing—at the same time—a solid weight on housing financial frameworks by requesting the quickened development of innovative advancement, work force retraining and the modernization of generation (O’Farrill et al., 1999). Substantial global competition arising from all the changes in the world scene shows through key issues that it is reorienting according to the range where the financial and exchange interface prevails, ie. does leadership in science and technology (O’Farrill et al., 1999). The cooperative exchanges of mutual restraint actually changed the nature of the interaction. They tended to make the two sides care almost each other’s welfare. This change can be deciphered in terms of the Prisoner’s situation by saying that exceptionally encounter of supported mutual cooperation changed the payoffs of the players, making common cooperation indeed more esteemed than it was sometime recently (Axelrod, 1984). Positive habits of cooperation through voluntary participation of actors, development of security, pragmatic and practical agreements, are the product of pragmatic institutions. The function of habit is to provide regularity in and therefore predictability of behavior that licenses coordination and steadiness of exercises and operations. It is fitting, hence, to respect propensity as an individual-level mechanism of institutions (Hodgson, 2008). Since they are learned behavior choices or conventions, habits are flexible adaptable sufficient to oblige to changing circumstances. The descriptive word was chosen intentionally to remove the more up-to-date approach from old institutionalism. With the fractional exemption of Commons, Williamson has repudiated hypothetical joins between his work and prior American institutionalism. In a few regards the unused institutionally draws on much prior thoughts (Hodgson, 2008). Within the 1970s and 1980s, a prominent hypothetical extend within the “new regulation economics” was to clarify the presence of political, lawful, or social, educate by reference to a show of given, person behavior, following out its results in terms of human intelligent. The endeavored illustrative development from people to teach, apparently taking people as essential and given in a beginning institution—free “state of nature” (Hodgson, 2008). International cooperation is guided by components of jointly defined strategies and development plans where countries are based on a common interest shared on the path to realization. Pragmatism in approaching and resolving towards a common goal is an important factor in defining the strategic components of joint cooperation. “This pragmatism” can be based on the individual approach of politicians, heads of state or politics. Habits and values within the individual as well as communities, ethnic groups are reflected on the international scene along with. The manner and style of pragmatism applied in establishing international cooperation is the basis for success in cooperation. Florian Bieber in the book “The rise of authoritarianism in the Western Balkans” searches for the ingredients that make up the Balkan autocrat (Bieber, 2019). Bieber points out that the leaders like Vučić, Dodik, Gruevski or Đukanović managed to ignite the Western imagination as young pragmatic reformers. Their rise to power was accompanied by approving comments in the Western media and governments. They did not come to power as radical candidates from the political margins, but succeeded with mainstream parties linked to European party families (Bieber, 2019). They need the European Union from outside that will praise them for their stability, take photos with them and close their eyes to the practice of trampling on the rule of law (Bieber, 2019). President Vučić is very successful in Serbia in claiming that he is constantly crucified between Russia and the West and that any hasty pro-Western line would cause a counter effect. This helped him to create more space where he could swing at the media and independent institutions (Bieber, 2019). It is “return of geopolitics” to the Balkans that has obscured a critical view of democracy and the rule of law (Bieber, 2019). Bieber further points out that instead of competing in patriotism in the countries of the Western Balkans and in striving to see which of the leaders is a “bigger reformer”, should be more talks about the ordinary everyday problems that people go through, the standard of living or poverty. The Balkan countries are the poorest countries in Europe. However, this shift requires investments and trade improvements, but above all cooperation at the highest level. Otherwise, great dissatisfaction and the sustainability of great patriotism and nationalism can cause escalations that can disrupt peace in Southeast Europe and in the whole of Europe (Deutsche Welle, 2022).
7. Conclusion
Pragmatism’s exploration of individual habits, behavior reveals the deep interconnectedness that shapes social dynamics. What the individual reflects is his capacity which consists of what he himself is. Pragmatism, with its focus on practical results and real-world application, emphasizes the critical role of the environment in the formation of individual habits and behavior. Everyone should behave according to the conditions and incentives present in society, emphasizing the reciprocal relationship between individuals and their environment. Thomas Hobbes’s advocacy of a strong, centralized government in “Leviathan” can be reconciled with pragmatic principles. Hobbes argues that in the absence of such governance, individuals acting solely out of self-interest would lead to a chaotic “state of nature.” A strong government, regardless of the political system, is therefore necessary to maintain order and encourage cooperative behavior. Pragmatism expands on this idea by emphasizing that the role of government is not merely to impose but to create conditions that naturally promote beneficial habits and behaviors among individuals. In this regard, a reflection of the behavior of others in the international system and in the concept of cooperation, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is a fundamental concept in game theory, which illustrates the challenges of cooperation in the face of individual self-interest. Without mechanisms to establish trust and cooperation, individuals can commit betrayal, leading to suboptimal outcomes for all involved. Pragmatically, the dilemma highlights the importance of a strong state framework that encourages cooperation and deters betrayal. By ensuring that cooperative actions are consistently rewarded and that betrayals are adequately punished, government can help align individual behavior with the collective good. Moreover, the reflexive nature of individuals means that their actions and behaviors are influenced by, and in turn are influenced by, their environment. When individuals perceive that cooperative behavior is rewarded and that such behavior leads to positive outcomes, they are more likely to adopt and internalize these behaviors themselves. This process of reflection creates a cycle in which the behavior of individuals reinforces and encourages their environment, fostering a culture of cooperation and mutual benefit in which pragmatism is created based on itself, that is, the reflection of the environment. In a pragmatic approach, recognizing the impact of environmental factors and the necessity of strong governance enables the creation of a society where cooperative habits prevail. This approach not only aligns individual behavior with social norms, but promotes a cohesive and successful community. The practical application of pragmatic principles ensures that individuals develop habits that are beneficial not only to them, but also to society as a whole. Finally, pragmatism provides a valuable framework for understanding and advancing the dynamics of human behavior and social cooperation. Acknowledging the reciprocal relationship between individuals and their environment, emphasizing the role of strong governmental structures in negotiating cooperation, pragmatism offers a path to building a harmonious and well-functioning society. Through this lens, the habits and behaviors of individuals reflect and shape their environment, creating a sustainable cycle of cooperation and mutual benefit.