Darkness by Design: The Hidden Power in Global Capital Markets. By Walter Mattli. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019. 264p. $29.95 cloth.
Darkness by Design: The Hidden Power in Global Capital Markets. By Walter Mattli. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019. 264p. $29.95 cloth.
复制标题
设计的黑暗：全球资本市场中隐藏的力量。
作者：
Jeffrey M. Chwieroth;A. Walter
其他人）认为他们能够确定他人的意向性。事实上，Holmes写道，“如果国际体系存在根本的不确定性，从而导致理解意图的问题，那么实践者往往会否认这种不确定性，并表现得好像他们对另一种不确定性很确定”（第244页，着重号在原文中）。这个“好像”可能足以解释为什么实践者坚持面对面的互动很重要。事实上，如果面对面的外交是一种社会实践，它有自己的共同期望，包括这样的会议有价值，它仍然可以塑造结果-有或没有大脑的镜像系统。简而言之，这本书强调了需要进一步研究面对面互动的反思和直觉方面之间的关系。第三，我们真的能把国家意图理解为“个人意图，因为是个人创造了它们”吗？当然，我们不应该低估个人决策者的作用，尤其是在霍姆斯研究的案例中，但今天，国家意图几乎不是个人的：它们基于群体决策以及制度和历史遗产。此外，个别领导人往往缺乏时间和资源来制定明确的意图。相反，正如霍姆斯也强调的那样，高层或峰会外交往往是一个舞台上的奇观，遵循一个详细的剧本，其中大部分谈判是在实际的面对面会议之前完成的。因此，霍姆斯的论点可能更适用于低级别外交，因为在低级别外交中，持续的面对面互动更为常见。虽然这些问题挑战了书中的论点，但也说明了霍姆斯对我们理解外交的发人深省的贡献。《面对面外交》不仅值得外交专业的学生阅读，也值得任何对世界政治微观动态感兴趣的国际关系学者阅读。
others) think that they are able to ascertain intentionality in others. Indeed, Holmes writes, “If there is fundamental uncertainty in the international system, which leads to a problem of intention understanding, practitioners often belie that uncertainty and act as if they are certain about the other” (p. 244, emphasis in the original). This “as if” might be enough to explain the overall puzzle of why practitioners insist that tête-à-tête interactions matter. Indeed, if face-to-face diplomacy is a social practice with its own shared expectations, including that such meetings have value, it could still shape outcomes—with or without the brain’s mirror system. In short, the book highlights the need for further research on the relationship between the reflective and intuitive aspects of face-to-face interactions. Third, can we really understand state intentions as “individual intentions since it is individuals who create them” (p. 28)? Certainly, we should not underestimate the role of individual decision makers, especially not in the cases that Holmes examine, but today, state intentions are hardly individual: they are based on group decisions and institutional and historical legacies. Moreover, individual leaders often lack the time and resources to develop clear intentions. Instead, as Holmes also emphasizes, top-level or summit diplomacy is often a staged spectacle, following a detailed playbook, where most of the negotiations are done before the actual face-to-face meeting summit. Thus, Holmes’s argument might be even more relevant to lowerlevel diplomacy where continuous face-to-face interactions are more common. Although they challenge the book’s argument, these questions also illustrate Holmes’s thought-provoking contribution to our understanding of diplomacy. Face-to-Face Diplomacy deserves to be read not just by students of diplomacy but also by any scholar of international relations interested in the microdynamics of world politics.