I've recently been exposed to the concept that in international relations theory, the state should be viewed as a "black box" a unitary actor who's internal goings have no relevance. As I understand it both realist and neoliberal theory hold this to be true. Although I suppose I can understand how this might make sense within the framework of an intellectual excercise, I do not see how it could have any relevance to the real world, where quite clearly, the religion, government type, and culture of every country have a huge impact on their relations with other countries. I'd be very interested in hearing how someone who is a proponent of this view would justify its relevance, or if I've misunderstood it, explain how it really works.

Because during the Cold War, which was a bi-polar world, and the era prior to the world wars, the Great Power period, which still saw a balance of power, international politics were defined as being only at the level of the state and the states' interactions with each other. The state itself, not the nation-state, was the unitary actor. Culture was considered merely an outcome of the economic and public policies of the state, and had no influence on the level of politics and economy. That thinking has changed somewhat, although not completely, since the end of the Cold War. I think this idea has gained some popularity since Samuel Huntingdon's article in Foreign Affairs in 1993. He apparently expounded on this later in a book, although admittedly I've never read it. He said that in the future that international relations would be determined by civilizations, rather than states, or even groups of states, and that culture is indeed a factor. Myself, I don't know. I agree with the importance of culture, at last to a degree, particularly with religion (and religion was the one cultural identity that the realist theory accepted), but I'm not so sure that the nation-state, particulary the idea that groups of states, will no longer be significant.

I'd be very interested in hearing how someone who is a proponent of this view would justify its relevance, or if I've misunderstood it, explain how it really works.I didn't know there was a name for it. Sometimes I think ideas like this were what memetics was invented for. But ... while I'd have to read some sort of "official" or more detailed analysis (Huntingdon's book, maybe?) to know whether I'm a proponent of the specific Black Box theory, it actually seems a nearly-beautiful sublimation of certain -isms. When we argue around here things like, "America steals," we're treading inside the Box. We're simplifying our view of what America is, restricting the term for the point to including every American. While not every American steals the way most define stealing, the assertion does not care about that issue because it's not about people.

However, I dunno.

[QUOTE=Spyke] Culture was considered merely an outcome of the economic and public policies of the state, and had no influence on the level of politics and economy. QUOTE]
I suppose I can see how in a bipolar world, the black box theory might have some application, but i'm sure there are countless example througout history of instances where states acted in ways that clearly where not in the interest of their survival, expansion, or economic gain as a result of their culture. Right now, for example, Cuba could abandon its current policies in order to get its embargo lifted and be more of a player on the world stage, or syria could accept Israel's right to exist and put themselves on the path to getting aid from the US, they don't do these things as a result of culture and internal politics.
I also dont' see how you could make an exception for religion but not other cultural factors that are often inextricably linked to religion.

but i'm sure there are countless example througout history of instances where states acted in ways that clearly where not in the interest of their survival, expansion, or economic gain as a result of their culture.

Are you sure that is what you meant to say? That only seems to be confirming what realism says. That state actions are not the result of culture. Realism says that culture is a result of state actions, not that "survival, expansion, or economic gain" are a result of culture. But even so, there may be examples as you say, that show flaws in the Realism theory. It has its weaknesses, as do all theories on international relations. There is no one perfect theory.

I also dont' see how you could make an exception for religion but not other cultural factors that are often inextricably linked to religion.

Because to my knowledge only in theocracies has any aspect of culture, in these cases religion, had any impact on a nation's foreign policy.

Are you sure that is what you meant to say? That only seems to be confirming what realism says.
How so? It seems to me that states acting in ways that are not beneficial to them as far as power and economics are concerned because of their culture would contradict realism.

That state actions are not the result of culture. Realism says that culture is a result of state actions, not that "survival, expansion, or economic gain" are a result of culture.
Culture is the result of state actions? How can that be considering that there was culture long before there were states?

Because to my knowledge only in theocracies has any aspect of culture, in these cases religion, had any impact on a nation's foreign policy.
I can't think of any examples where culture has influenced foreign policy of hand, but how about the type of govt a state has? Certainly it would be worth taking into account whether a nation has an insane dictator or a democratci government?

How so? It seems to me that states acting in ways that are not beneficial to them as far as power and economics are concerned because of their culture would contradict realism.

I don't know. You would have to read what Realists say about it, proably starting with Hobbes. You say that there should be plenty of examples throughout history, but Realism is really more concerned with the period of history post-1648 with the advent of the nation-state. So that would narrow your search for examples.

Culture is the result of state actions? How can that be considering that there was culture long before there were states?

Well, in the short, Realism doesn't say that culture is created by state actions, only that it can be effected and shaped by state actions, not vice versa, with the occasional exception of religion.

I can't think of any examples where culture has influenced foreign policy of hand, but how about the type of govt a state has? Certainly it would be worth taking into account whether a nation has an insane dictator or a democratci government?

I don't know. I've never explored it. Realism was simply one of the models that was studied in international relations courses in college, but I'm not a political theorist.