The world is not totally one way or the other. I feel that the world is made up of multiple truths. The way I may see the world may not be the way you see the world, but that doesn't necessarily mean my view is wrong. I sort of see reality as a three dimensional thing, like a diamond. There are many surfaces and planes which casts off every color in the spectrum. If you look one way you see one color, but if you look at it from another angle you see a totally different color. Just because one person sees a situation through a certain lens does not mean that others do not exist or are wrong. When thinking about the incompatibility between the three different schools of thoughts and their interpretation of the Brenton Wood system I hate how society tells us that we have to choose what is right and what is wrong. Instead I feel that we should see these different approaches as just a different plane and not choose right or wrong. As we talked about in class, the people in each school of thought looks at different things when examining the system. They have different definitions for what consists of an institution they look at different entities ( groups and norms vs. individuals etc. They look at the world in different colors. We should take these colors, combine them and make a rainbow. or create a multi-colored lens that allows us to see the world through different perspectives. Okay, the constructivist, the liberals, and the realists do not see the Brenton Wood system the same, but I find no reason to pick which view is right, indefinitely. We should pick the view that is right for the situation and the parties involved. Keep each view in our "IR Tool Belt." By doing so we can see where each view is lacking and use the others to allow us to see interactions between countries more clearly.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
I Like Realism, I Like Liberalism...
As we pitted realism against liberalism, liberalism against constructivism, and constructivism against realism, Professor Jackson likened the excercise to learning vocabulary:
At the time, it seemed as if the theories contradicted one another. However, they may not contradict each other as much as complement each other. In essence, a theory is "necessarily partial . . . it highlights some things, while leaving others out" (PTJ podcast reference, Realism). Thus, all three perspectives should be considered because they analyze different parts of a whole.
However, if all three schools of thought were interconnected, why is there this debate as to which is right? Possibly, not all the theories can be applied at once or as strongly at a time. "Accuracy" is dependent on every type of context (i.e. social, economic, historical, cultural), especially the state's/people's goals.
However, in general, a state may find it advantageous to do the following: take a constructivist mentality and assume that history changes --> to exchange in its best interests (liberalism) --> in order to sustain power and influence world order (realism). Yet, as stated, this scenario always is dependent on context. A state (and its people) must be comfortable with applying the different theories for them to be effective, and the worldly scenario must be in accordance with theory.
In the Brenton Woods example, as discussed, all the theories aligned to form a fairly successful sytem . . .
So, like in the video posted above, it is possible to say, "I like broccoli" and "I like potatoes." In fact, both become part of a well-balanced diet.
At the time, it seemed as if the theories contradicted one another. However, they may not contradict each other as much as complement each other. In essence, a theory is "necessarily partial . . . it highlights some things, while leaving others out" (PTJ podcast reference, Realism). Thus, all three perspectives should be considered because they analyze different parts of a whole.
However, if all three schools of thought were interconnected, why is there this debate as to which is right? Possibly, not all the theories can be applied at once or as strongly at a time. "Accuracy" is dependent on every type of context (i.e. social, economic, historical, cultural), especially the state's/people's goals.
However, in general, a state may find it advantageous to do the following: take a constructivist mentality and assume that history changes --> to exchange in its best interests (liberalism) --> in order to sustain power and influence world order (realism). Yet, as stated, this scenario always is dependent on context. A state (and its people) must be comfortable with applying the different theories for them to be effective, and the worldly scenario must be in accordance with theory.
In the Brenton Woods example, as discussed, all the theories aligned to form a fairly successful sytem . . .
So, like in the video posted above, it is possible to say, "I like broccoli" and "I like potatoes." In fact, both become part of a well-balanced diet.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Accurate Perspectives
If one perspective is accurate, does it necessarily mean the others are wrong?
Tough question.
There are always different ways of looking at things. Just because one way is right, does not necessarily mean that all the other ways are wrong. If one person looks at a wall and calls the color "white," and another looks at the same wall and calls the color "eggshell," is one of them wrong? No. They just have different perspectives on the same thing. It doesn't mean that one of them is wrong. With something like perspectives on Bretton Woods, however, it gets a little more complicated. In cases like that, I do believe that different opinions can be either more or less accurate - and most likely, none of them are completely true. Of the perspectives we discussed, none of them really fit together. It just isn't really possible for all of them to be right at the same time. In many ways, they contradict each other. There is not any certain way to tell which one is right. That being said, in order for one to be right and the others to be wrong, there would have to be some sort of absolute truth. In my view of the world, there isn't an absolute Truth. At least not when it comes to ideas - it can be true that here in Washington DC, at midnight the sun is always down. It is dark. That is true, and that can't change. But when it comes to an idea, a theory, something that isn't completely concrete, I don't think there can be a true and false. No black and white.
But again, as I said before, I do believe that something can be more accurate than something else (although when it comes to Bretton Woods, I have no idea what perspective I believe is most accurate). It doesn't really make sense that if something can be more accurate, there wouldn't be a completely accurate, but this is a ridiculous question that really isn't possible to answer correctly. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, if one answer to this question is accurate, does it necessarily mean that all the others are wrong? Think about it.
Tough question.
There are always different ways of looking at things. Just because one way is right, does not necessarily mean that all the other ways are wrong. If one person looks at a wall and calls the color "white," and another looks at the same wall and calls the color "eggshell," is one of them wrong? No. They just have different perspectives on the same thing. It doesn't mean that one of them is wrong. With something like perspectives on Bretton Woods, however, it gets a little more complicated. In cases like that, I do believe that different opinions can be either more or less accurate - and most likely, none of them are completely true. Of the perspectives we discussed, none of them really fit together. It just isn't really possible for all of them to be right at the same time. In many ways, they contradict each other. There is not any certain way to tell which one is right. That being said, in order for one to be right and the others to be wrong, there would have to be some sort of absolute truth. In my view of the world, there isn't an absolute Truth. At least not when it comes to ideas - it can be true that here in Washington DC, at midnight the sun is always down. It is dark. That is true, and that can't change. But when it comes to an idea, a theory, something that isn't completely concrete, I don't think there can be a true and false. No black and white.
But again, as I said before, I do believe that something can be more accurate than something else (although when it comes to Bretton Woods, I have no idea what perspective I believe is most accurate). It doesn't really make sense that if something can be more accurate, there wouldn't be a completely accurate, but this is a ridiculous question that really isn't possible to answer correctly. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, if one answer to this question is accurate, does it necessarily mean that all the others are wrong? Think about it.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Constructing Theoretical Institutions
The other day we looked at how the three various theories we’ve learned interacted. While in class the three points of view contradicted, this conflict is not inevitable. The three ideologies can be used and combined to create a comprehensive worldview.
One of the first things we learned about constructivism is that it does not tell a state what to do. Rather, constructivism can be used to explain the world. It makes very few (if any) normative claims in and of itself. Therefore, anything can be looked at through a constructivist perspective, even if the person is a realist or liberal. However, a few of the basic tenets of the ideologies would have to be tampered with. For example, realism holds that international relations boils down to a battle between self-interested states within an anarchic system. Using constructivism, one would say that this institution of self-interest is not the only possible one. Rather, it is the institution that we are currently in and therefore we can understand other states objectives using realism even as we attempt to construct another one.
Conceivably, a person could try to connect realism and liberalism. One could say that on economic matters we live in a liberal world while in military matters we live in a realist one. However, the contradictions and equivocation that would be involved would be hard to deal with. A better solution would be to combine these two ideologies through constructivism.
Once a person recognizes that the norms, rules, and institutions in the international society are malleable one can make a great number of reasonably leaps. Under constructivism, realism and liberalism can coexist perfectly well because different states may hold different ideologies. If two states use realism to construct their identity then they will interact in self-interested ways. However, if these two states are constructed as liberal, then they will choose actions along a liberal path. Therefore, a state can seek to create whatever kind of international environment they want to; including (but not limited to), liberal institutions, realist institutions, and institutions combining elements from both of them.
One of the first things we learned about constructivism is that it does not tell a state what to do. Rather, constructivism can be used to explain the world. It makes very few (if any) normative claims in and of itself. Therefore, anything can be looked at through a constructivist perspective, even if the person is a realist or liberal. However, a few of the basic tenets of the ideologies would have to be tampered with. For example, realism holds that international relations boils down to a battle between self-interested states within an anarchic system. Using constructivism, one would say that this institution of self-interest is not the only possible one. Rather, it is the institution that we are currently in and therefore we can understand other states objectives using realism even as we attempt to construct another one.
Conceivably, a person could try to connect realism and liberalism. One could say that on economic matters we live in a liberal world while in military matters we live in a realist one. However, the contradictions and equivocation that would be involved would be hard to deal with. A better solution would be to combine these two ideologies through constructivism.
Once a person recognizes that the norms, rules, and institutions in the international society are malleable one can make a great number of reasonably leaps. Under constructivism, realism and liberalism can coexist perfectly well because different states may hold different ideologies. If two states use realism to construct their identity then they will interact in self-interested ways. However, if these two states are constructed as liberal, then they will choose actions along a liberal path. Therefore, a state can seek to create whatever kind of international environment they want to; including (but not limited to), liberal institutions, realist institutions, and institutions combining elements from both of them.
What would Rousseau say?
The French Ambassador’s hair particularly stood out. It looked as if it should have been a wig. If there was a God it would have been a wig. But, alas, that slicked backed mop was firmly implanted in his scalp. That seemed to set the tone for out talk. His argument was that according to scholars the burqa isn’t a religious symbol and was therefore only a repressive and arcane cultural practice. This argument has several flaws. According to Enlightenment ideals, in every person there is a place of sacredness that does not belong to anyone other then that individual. How that person chooses to express that place of sacredness is up to them. Therefore, any state mandate that interferes with the full expression of it is a violation of that person’s rights. According to this belief, religion is not an institution it is a personal choice. The state does not have the right to say what is or is not part of a religion.
The feeling I got from the French diplomat was one of cultural imperialism. All his rhetoric of integration seemed to hold beneath it a belief that to become French one had to not only speak French but conform to French culture. He seemed to imply that one could not fully maintain a foreign culture while still being French. Its interested to compare this stance with the “Welcome to the USA” video wherein diversity was only shown in isolated sections. The message being that while there is diversity in the larger community there is little in individual communities. With both these countries the question hangs in the air: is it possible to maintain ones culture while integrating onto another one, and if not which parts of ones culture should be kept?
The feeling I got from the French diplomat was one of cultural imperialism. All his rhetoric of integration seemed to hold beneath it a belief that to become French one had to not only speak French but conform to French culture. He seemed to imply that one could not fully maintain a foreign culture while still being French. Its interested to compare this stance with the “Welcome to the USA” video wherein diversity was only shown in isolated sections. The message being that while there is diversity in the larger community there is little in individual communities. With both these countries the question hangs in the air: is it possible to maintain ones culture while integrating onto another one, and if not which parts of ones culture should be kept?
Monday, September 27, 2010
Parlez-vous français?
I was ecstatic to go to the French embassy this past week, not because I particularly favor the French (though their baguettes, Tour de France, and history in relation to the U.S. is pretty cool), but because it was a chance to get into the mind of another country. As the speaker M. Manuel noted, we can see the "glass as half-empty or half-full."
This definitely seemed to apply to identity. I was shocked when the diplomat bluntly stated, "There are no minorities in France." This underscored their ruling on the burqa. After I (a too optimistic and "liberal American") took a poll on a website against banning the burqa, I realized I was out of favor. Apparently, homogeneity is good. Though some may chuckle about the French diplomatic tradition to conduct business in their native tongue, there may be some admiration of their pride as well. If a nation has so much pride in itself, can we not help but be in awe of it? Such is a powerful country. If, according to Wendt, we take anarchy/self-help as institutions, strong relationships may occur that are not necessarily egoistic (i.e. alliances).
I suppose that a little patriotism goes a long way. Though we are free to choose how much we focus on our country, to a certain extent, it seems like a civic duty... grounded in reality. Yes, we should "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" on that personal level, as blandished during the Nats game. Still, we should not overlook the issues in America, as masked by the Customs service ads. In contrast to the French, how does the U.S. truly feel about minorities? How much does it act upon those feelings? To what extent is the American language English? Then, is integration sparse because of society's limits or our own expectations?
This definitely seemed to apply to identity. I was shocked when the diplomat bluntly stated, "There are no minorities in France." This underscored their ruling on the burqa. After I (a too optimistic and "liberal American") took a poll on a website against banning the burqa, I realized I was out of favor. Apparently, homogeneity is good. Though some may chuckle about the French diplomatic tradition to conduct business in their native tongue, there may be some admiration of their pride as well. If a nation has so much pride in itself, can we not help but be in awe of it? Such is a powerful country. If, according to Wendt, we take anarchy/self-help as institutions, strong relationships may occur that are not necessarily egoistic (i.e. alliances).
I suppose that a little patriotism goes a long way. Though we are free to choose how much we focus on our country, to a certain extent, it seems like a civic duty... grounded in reality. Yes, we should "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" on that personal level, as blandished during the Nats game. Still, we should not overlook the issues in America, as masked by the Customs service ads. In contrast to the French, how does the U.S. truly feel about minorities? How much does it act upon those feelings? To what extent is the American language English? Then, is integration sparse because of society's limits or our own expectations?
In Alabama We Speak English
I was pretty much disgusted with the campaign video that we watched in class on friday. I literally thought that it was the parity of the real thing. I couldn't believe that someine really felt that way about the diversity we have in the United States. I know that in my community at home everyday I encounter a different ethnic group that has their own language. I love it.At anytime in my neighborhood at home you can hear spanish, an african dialect, arabic, or mandarin. It is a part of my neighborhoods culture. I can honestly say that no one in that neighborhood really resents the presence of these languages. Unlike in Alabama where this apparently is a big issue.( big enough that its a campaign platform)
This video and discussion in class got me thinking about our visit to the French Embassy. During the discussion with the French diplomat, I remember him saying that in French law there was no concept of the minority. A French man with African heritage is simply french. I thought for a long time and I came to the conclusion that I actually do not like that. He kept stressing integration to French society. Why can' t there just be acceptance. why can I not keep cultural practices from my families heritage? I feel like this policy sort of erases a piece of your heritage. I know American is not perfect and without discrimination, but I love the fact that you can hold on to your culture and still be an American. That's why I was soo shocked to see the campaign add speaking against that diversity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)