The one thing that I realized during our final weeks is that everyone is going to relate to IR everyone differently. At the beginning of this course I thought everyone saw the theories as the same, more or less. While they might subscribe to realism or liberalism or constructivism, they saw each other's differing theories similarly. And through the first half of our class this perception didn't change.
But when we started doing the projects, everything started to change. It matters where people come from, how they were raised. Almost our entire terrorism group was from New York City or its suburbs, an unusually high number for the class (or so I assume). The feminism group only had two guys, which is not representative or our entire class. Everyone is going to be draw to the issues that they have grown up hearing about. Those from North Dakota aren't likely to want to research deeply into terrorism because they just don't have any incentive, just as not all guys are going to want to study how gender roles relate to IR, or atheists in the religion group, etc. So while the projects weren't theories or maybe not even fringe theories, they help shape what theories the rest of us subscribe to, and how we see the other theories as well.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Final Reflection
Today in class, we discussed that politics is partisan by definition. A politician is always expressing a viewpoint that is going to go against another politician. There is no way to pinpoint how someone arrives at a certain viewpoint. Statistics show that people are likely to have the same political view as their parents, but what speaks for the exceptions? It is impossible to understand exactly where someone is coming and the reason for faith, certain political beliefs, interests, etc. The complicated nature of understanding one person's political views can be seen as a microcosm for the complicated nature of international relations as a whole. It is impossible to dissect why a certain country acts the way it does. There are so many elements that shape a country. Each theory that we have studied, attempts to understand certain aspects to explain the system and behavior of countries or nonstate actors. Although it is impossible to understand the whole picture, the more angles that you examine a specific issue or country, the more full your understanding is, and the more likely it is that your actions will produce positive results. For example, it is important to remember that economic interest almost always plays a role in the behavior of states, but the form this interest takes can vary, or the legacy of colony may be remembered very differently depending on whether a country is the colonizer, the colony, or a bystander. Further, how can you separate the role of economic interest from the relationship between the colonizer and the colony. This example shows how hard it is to truly understand the relations that states have with each other, and how important it is to try to understand in any situation where you are trying to make a change.
Reflection 11.27
In Tuesday's class Agata proposed a question that failed to be addressed by my classmates due to our many tangents about terrorism, drunk driving, and the like. She asked if it was feasible for the US to stop being the world police power.
In short order, no. Even if (my limited government friend) Ron Paul was elected President, there would be no way for the US to dramatically change its role in global affairs as the protectorate and revert to an isolationist path reminiscent of specific periods in American history. Besides our commitment in Iraq (which seems to be the most favored example IR students like to use next to 9.11), the US has troops in Afghanistan, South Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Djibouti, Egypt and nearly sixty other nations. These troops provide a variety of roles. They are involved with humanitarian endeavors, relief operations, development projects in addition to typical military efforts. If we were able to remove tens of thousands involved in "the police force" which protects people, territory, energy routes and American interests, our nation would play a dramatically different role in the international system. Its important to note that there would also be a feeling in some locations that the US was backing off their agreement to protect protect a region.
In short order, no. Even if (my limited government friend) Ron Paul was elected President, there would be no way for the US to dramatically change its role in global affairs as the protectorate and revert to an isolationist path reminiscent of specific periods in American history. Besides our commitment in Iraq (which seems to be the most favored example IR students like to use next to 9.11), the US has troops in Afghanistan, South Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Djibouti, Egypt and nearly sixty other nations. These troops provide a variety of roles. They are involved with humanitarian endeavors, relief operations, development projects in addition to typical military efforts. If we were able to remove tens of thousands involved in "the police force" which protects people, territory, energy routes and American interests, our nation would play a dramatically different role in the international system. Its important to note that there would also be a feeling in some locations that the US was backing off their agreement to protect protect a region.
Holliday Article
Holliday discusses the numerous problems that exist when one tries to define when there is just cause to go to war. He says that although "global rule of law probably is a pipe dream...the absolutely key requirement is a set of shared understandings that can underpin military interventions undertaken in the name of just cause" (572). The problem is that the agencies at war with each other in the contemporary world are partially at war because they do not have shared values. Further, they have values that conflict to the point that war seems to be the only outlet to let the ideological conflict play out. Is Halliday speaking exclusively about the Western world? If so, is his claim that "shared understanding" will "move us away from a unipolar world in which the US acts as very neraly the only global policeman to..."community policing"" really just perpetuating a Western conception of just law?
Understanding how different agencies perceive just law, and then acting accordingly is the best way to prevent war, or at least ensure just war. Anti-US terrorists are really good at doing this, while the United States acts to achieve its own conception of justice, even if it is not a practical and effective way of achieving justice. President Bush may have had just cause to go into Iraq, but because the rest of the world did not perceive this to be so, the US went to war at more of a disadvantage. When going to Iraq, Bush should have contemplated more than just validating to himself and the American people that there was just cause, rather he should have thought about what Iraq, its neighbors, and the rest of the world thought.
Understanding how different agencies perceive just law, and then acting accordingly is the best way to prevent war, or at least ensure just war. Anti-US terrorists are really good at doing this, while the United States acts to achieve its own conception of justice, even if it is not a practical and effective way of achieving justice. President Bush may have had just cause to go into Iraq, but because the rest of the world did not perceive this to be so, the US went to war at more of a disadvantage. When going to Iraq, Bush should have contemplated more than just validating to himself and the American people that there was just cause, rather he should have thought about what Iraq, its neighbors, and the rest of the world thought.
Halliday Article
Halliday seems to understand that the study of international relations needs to shift to reflect the changing international system as well as the changes in society. His four tenets of what IR as a whole needs to be are a) a way to train one's mind, b) a way to organzie thoughts into coherent systems, c) a way for people to specialize in one area, such as foreign policy, and d) be a lense through which we can view contemporary issues. All of this needs to be able to adapt based on what social norms we have and via history.
I thought two things when he first said this, the first being "tell me something I don't know." He seems to take for granted that no one applies history lessons to IR, as if its only taught in schools as a discipline rather. He talks about its similarities to other social sciences but recognizes the need to have a real world application. History should be examined (such as the changes since the Pelopponesian Wars) and then extrapolated upon. I myself sort of thought that was the whole point to IR, but maybe it's just a way for teachers to get paid.
In his final paragraphs he mentions some of the things IR theory can help to understand, such as ethics. But I am starting to feel as though only constructivism answers all questions about the world at large. At first I'll admit I sort of regarded constructivism as some kind of joke as it gives very little boundries to what in entails. But now I begin to see it as a strength as we move along. My group presentation was based heavily on constructivism (Terrorism &"The Clash") and now I see that the other theories don't have any means of dealing with religion, terrorism, or ethics. It's as though Halliday is deep constructivist and doesn't really know it.
I thought two things when he first said this, the first being "tell me something I don't know." He seems to take for granted that no one applies history lessons to IR, as if its only taught in schools as a discipline rather. He talks about its similarities to other social sciences but recognizes the need to have a real world application. History should be examined (such as the changes since the Pelopponesian Wars) and then extrapolated upon. I myself sort of thought that was the whole point to IR, but maybe it's just a way for teachers to get paid.
In his final paragraphs he mentions some of the things IR theory can help to understand, such as ethics. But I am starting to feel as though only constructivism answers all questions about the world at large. At first I'll admit I sort of regarded constructivism as some kind of joke as it gives very little boundries to what in entails. But now I begin to see it as a strength as we move along. My group presentation was based heavily on constructivism (Terrorism &"The Clash") and now I see that the other theories don't have any means of dealing with religion, terrorism, or ethics. It's as though Halliday is deep constructivist and doesn't really know it.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
American Identity
The Reluctant Fundamentalist dealt a lot with the concept of identity and how identities have shifted as a result of 9/11. In the book, three identities are singled out -- America, New York, and Pakistan -- but after 9/11, the New York identity disappears into the American identity, and American and Pakistani identities are pushed apart. Binary relationships strengthen after 9/11, as you can no longer identify with both -- you're either one or the other.
This led me to think about what it actually means to be an American, but when I thought about it, most things that came to mind were not really purely American. For example, Americans pride themselves off of their freedom and democracy, but this is clearly not unique to the United States. We also often consider ourselves a "melting pot" of cultures, which may be a relatively unique feature, but if this is true, then why did 9/11 bring about such tensions and prejudices between cultures? The only overtly "American" characteristics that came to mind were those stereotypes that foreigners often have of us -- materialistic, work-oriented, and obese -- some of which may not necessarily be true, but all of which are not the most pleasant of identities. So what is it that makes people so proud to be American? Although many of these characteristics are shared by others, I think it is the sheer magnitude of power we have behind everything we do, which gives us this pride in our identity -- it really is unique to the US. If this is the case, however, it may also feed into further resentment from alienated or terrorist groups. Perhaps we should take some time to reevaluate what it actually means to be an American.
This led me to think about what it actually means to be an American, but when I thought about it, most things that came to mind were not really purely American. For example, Americans pride themselves off of their freedom and democracy, but this is clearly not unique to the United States. We also often consider ourselves a "melting pot" of cultures, which may be a relatively unique feature, but if this is true, then why did 9/11 bring about such tensions and prejudices between cultures? The only overtly "American" characteristics that came to mind were those stereotypes that foreigners often have of us -- materialistic, work-oriented, and obese -- some of which may not necessarily be true, but all of which are not the most pleasant of identities. So what is it that makes people so proud to be American? Although many of these characteristics are shared by others, I think it is the sheer magnitude of power we have behind everything we do, which gives us this pride in our identity -- it really is unique to the US. If this is the case, however, it may also feed into further resentment from alienated or terrorist groups. Perhaps we should take some time to reevaluate what it actually means to be an American.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Halliday
According to Halliday, the development of international relations reflects the broader challenges and shifts in our society. He believes IR should be judged on the same standards of other social sciences, identifying four justifications for the field of study. It should: 1) train the mind, 2) put facts in the context of theories, 3) prepare students for working in international organization or foreign policy, and 4) provide knowledge pertinent to the resolution of contemporary issues.
My main contention with his argument for the discipline lies in his assertion that “facts on their own are dumb”. Fred Halliday believes that facts need to be organized into conceptual system and that these theories need to be taught to students. He later states that IR needs to remain substantive. In his opinion, facts are of limited utility on their own; IR should then produce theories that analyze historical processes and specific issues within them (745).
IR theories, although useful, cannot explain everything. Each school of thought possesses theories that help explain the world from their perspective- they are a lens to understand the world in which we live. Theory cannot be the answer to everything, because it does not ask all the questions. If we were to discount facts in their own right, we would never really be able to understand any event in the international system if it was not addressed by the existing theory. (For example, look at the resurgence of religion and the recent increase of terrorism by non-state actors).
My main contention with his argument for the discipline lies in his assertion that “facts on their own are dumb”. Fred Halliday believes that facts need to be organized into conceptual system and that these theories need to be taught to students. He later states that IR needs to remain substantive. In his opinion, facts are of limited utility on their own; IR should then produce theories that analyze historical processes and specific issues within them (745).
IR theories, although useful, cannot explain everything. Each school of thought possesses theories that help explain the world from their perspective- they are a lens to understand the world in which we live. Theory cannot be the answer to everything, because it does not ask all the questions. If we were to discount facts in their own right, we would never really be able to understand any event in the international system if it was not addressed by the existing theory. (For example, look at the resurgence of religion and the recent increase of terrorism by non-state actors).
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Nandy
Nandy draws attention to the lack of severity in each of these hijacking cases and makes a connection to the dramatization later given to these events by the media. As Nandy mentioned, these first few cases may have been terrorism events in another, less violent era of Indian terrorism. In the end, Nandy describes one case where real guns are actually used, and the terrorist actively tries to take on the persona of a ruthless terrorist.
This shift led me to wonder about the role of media in all terrorist events. It is possible that in this case, with the negative slant on all of the peaceful hijackings a self-fulfilling prophecy was formed -- it was the media that helped propel terrorism onto a new level. By publicizing these events in an unrealistically dramatic way and creating fear of ineffective airport security and tensions with Pakistan, the media is also in essence furthering the terrorist cause. So how does this come about and what can be done about it? First, the right to report on such events cannot be revoked for the sake of free speech and the right of the citizen to know about the events, so reporting will continue. Second, if the media were to report kind stories in favor of terrorists, it would face severe backlash and the threat of treason, and so for reasons of self-interest, these stories can expectantly be limited -- though they should not be manipulated. Third, the media is often viewed as an expert source, though in reality it is not and it should not strive to become one on the matter of terrorism.
In sum, what can be done about the media is limited. Although media reporting may not be beneficial certain respects, it does increase our access to information and protect our right to free speech. The media does owe it to the public, however, to portray the truth. As difficult as it may be, journalists should approach each event without prior assumptions as to the severity of the situation and root causes. Creating a slant is one thing, but misreporting facts in a highly-respected and widely-distributed publication is an entirely different issue.
This shift led me to wonder about the role of media in all terrorist events. It is possible that in this case, with the negative slant on all of the peaceful hijackings a self-fulfilling prophecy was formed -- it was the media that helped propel terrorism onto a new level. By publicizing these events in an unrealistically dramatic way and creating fear of ineffective airport security and tensions with Pakistan, the media is also in essence furthering the terrorist cause. So how does this come about and what can be done about it? First, the right to report on such events cannot be revoked for the sake of free speech and the right of the citizen to know about the events, so reporting will continue. Second, if the media were to report kind stories in favor of terrorists, it would face severe backlash and the threat of treason, and so for reasons of self-interest, these stories can expectantly be limited -- though they should not be manipulated. Third, the media is often viewed as an expert source, though in reality it is not and it should not strive to become one on the matter of terrorism.
In sum, what can be done about the media is limited. Although media reporting may not be beneficial certain respects, it does increase our access to information and protect our right to free speech. The media does owe it to the public, however, to portray the truth. As difficult as it may be, journalists should approach each event without prior assumptions as to the severity of the situation and root causes. Creating a slant is one thing, but misreporting facts in a highly-respected and widely-distributed publication is an entirely different issue.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Nandy- Charms of Indian Terrorism
When I began reading Nandy's The Discrete Charms of Indian Terrorism I began to think of the similarities between the hijackings on September 11th and the Sheik hijacking on July 5th, 1984. One account said the hijackers were all young men who jumped out of their seats, put on their yellow and blue turbans and claimed they had weapons, similar to the way Flight 93 was portrayed. As I continued to read, I soon realized that these hijackings were nothing alike.
0nce the hijackers landed the plane in Lahore, there are few linkages to the 9.11
plane hijackings. Numerous accounts state that these Sheiks began to provide baby food and milk for infants and children. At night, the hijackers served the hostages, and in the morning, the flight attendants resumed their post. Some individuals described the hijackers as kind. With the announcement that the Sheiks intended to blow up the plane, their was visible dissension among the hijackers, as some did not want to inflict violence. In the end, the hijackers let the passengers go despite Prime Minister Gandhi's rejection of their demands of ransom money, a return of captured goods from the Golden Temple and the release of captives from the army action of June '94.
The fact that the hijackers were so willing to concede still puzzles me. They were willing to go to the trouble of taking over a plane with nearly 200 hostage- and then back down without harming anyone when their demands were not met. This contradicted my conventional notions of terrorism. The author uses other examples in South East Asia to also challenge the idea and definition of terrorism.
0nce the hijackers landed the plane in Lahore, there are few linkages to the 9.11
plane hijackings. Numerous accounts state that these Sheiks began to provide baby food and milk for infants and children. At night, the hijackers served the hostages, and in the morning, the flight attendants resumed their post. Some individuals described the hijackers as kind. With the announcement that the Sheiks intended to blow up the plane, their was visible dissension among the hijackers, as some did not want to inflict violence. In the end, the hijackers let the passengers go despite Prime Minister Gandhi's rejection of their demands of ransom money, a return of captured goods from the Golden Temple and the release of captives from the army action of June '94.
The fact that the hijackers were so willing to concede still puzzles me. They were willing to go to the trouble of taking over a plane with nearly 200 hostage- and then back down without harming anyone when their demands were not met. This contradicted my conventional notions of terrorism. The author uses other examples in South East Asia to also challenge the idea and definition of terrorism.
Friday, November 16, 2007
List every IR conflict...
So when asked to list every conflict that has some connection to religion, I turned to the rest of the "Terrorism & the Clash" group and maintained that every event that could be studied in the course of IR history has to do with religion. The only one I can possibly exclude is World War I, and I'm not sure why. Even something like the Spanish Armada is religiou; part of Spain's motivation for conquering England was to instate a Catholic monarch in a Protestant country. It's something that people carry with them very closely.
This can also be a huge problem at times. It's stupid to assume that different religions can't get along. My roommate, who sits in the room while I type this, is Jewish while I am Presbyterian. And while I grew up in a 60% Jewish hometown and am used to that particular religion, we get along fine. It's similar to how Gabe said his roommate is a Muslim. If we're brought up to be tolerant of other religions but still practice whatever we find most appealing then we shouldn't have conflict. However in some places other religious groups are villified and antagonized, and this creates the problems that our world labels religious problems. Muslisms and Jews get along fine in many areas of the world, including the US, but not near Israel. That's because that is a conflict in which religion is what defines nations and certain religions just can't get along.
This can also be a huge problem at times. It's stupid to assume that different religions can't get along. My roommate, who sits in the room while I type this, is Jewish while I am Presbyterian. And while I grew up in a 60% Jewish hometown and am used to that particular religion, we get along fine. It's similar to how Gabe said his roommate is a Muslim. If we're brought up to be tolerant of other religions but still practice whatever we find most appealing then we shouldn't have conflict. However in some places other religious groups are villified and antagonized, and this creates the problems that our world labels religious problems. Muslisms and Jews get along fine in many areas of the world, including the US, but not near Israel. That's because that is a conflict in which religion is what defines nations and certain religions just can't get along.
Religious Resurgence
When we were first asked to write down all of the religious conflicts we could think of, it took awhile for our group to get started. Then, as we started listing one after the other it became clear that religious resurgence and conflicts have affected all seven continents, minus Antarctica of course. This brings me back to the chapter of Panipur in which Roy
Religion and Socialization [Yoo, Week 11, Dialogue]
As Lauren pointed out, in America, being tolerant of other religious beliefs equates to being tolerent of religions that are not Christian. In class, Elizabeth made an interesting comment about how people of different religions need to interact more in order to better understand each other. Another individual pointed out that due to technological advancements, people of different religions are able to interact each other more in today's society than in the past. I feel that more interaction can lead to two distinctively different outcomes: people of different religions may better understand each other, which is positive. Or, people of different religions may be appalled at each other, which is negative. I do not want to get psychological and sociological, but I believe interaction must start at a very early age in order for it to lead to a positive outcome. Children are socialized from the beginning of their lives to act in certain ways, and to view certain things as the norm. Even as a non-practicing Christian, I cannot imagine living in a society where Islam is the dominant religion. Even though I "respect" Islam, I can never imagine requiring my daughters to wear a scarf in order to go out, or to pray to Allah before eating dinner. I am impressed with Elizabeth's idealism and her belief that people can change, but I am overall skeptical of interaction leading to better understanding. Some people always refuse to change.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Reflection Class 11.15
When talking about religious resurgence today, Gabe was discussing the infeasibility of faith-based diplomacy in certain situations with the illustration of Pat Robertson and Osama Bin Laden working things out together in a room. Someone was quick to jump on this illustration saying OBL does not represent all Muslims. I sat there puzzled for a moment because there was a murmur throughout the class and a bunch of head-nods. Did the majority of the class believe that Pat Robertson represents all Christians, or even all Evangelical believers?
I think my narrative about class is ultimately less a critique about American society and the way we treat religious belief but more so a commentary on how religion is so often left out of the academic discourse. When we talk about being tolerant and open minded in a university setting, we automatically assume acceptance of non-Christian religions. To really have a serious discussion about religion in the political sphere and international arena, we are going to have to do a better job comprehending and acknowledging the role and assumptions of ALL religious backgrounds, no matter how common or unique they may be in society.
I think my narrative about class is ultimately less a critique about American society and the way we treat religious belief but more so a commentary on how religion is so often left out of the academic discourse. When we talk about being tolerant and open minded in a university setting, we automatically assume acceptance of non-Christian religions. To really have a serious discussion about religion in the political sphere and international arena, we are going to have to do a better job comprehending and acknowledging the role and assumptions of ALL religious backgrounds, no matter how common or unique they may be in society.
Liberalism as a precondition
In class today, we discussed that faith based diplomacy assumes that as long as the two groups are like-minded or accepting of the role of religion in society then the diplomatic process with run smoothly. We also said in class that if two parties don't disagree then no kind of diplomacy is going to solve the problem. In his book, Thomas discussed that many nations today do not have the liberal multipluralist perspective that western foreign policy is guided by, and that it is important to understand this in order to have more effective diplomacy, aid, and even democracy promotion. Just like faith based diplomacy does not take legitimate disagreement into account, Scott does not take into account the fact that it is hard to have the understanding to participate in faith based diplomacy or take a religion friendly perspective with a different nation without this point of view. In cultures that do not separate religion from community life and government, it will be harder to relate to other nations with different religious beliefs. It still takes the understanding and tolerance of different beliefs of pluralism to engage in faith based diplomacy.
9/11 and Religion
Christine mentioned the classification of 9/11 as a religiously motivated event and the religious response of the US in terms of candle ceremonies and prayers in the days following the event. I thought this was an interesting connection, but one which needs some expanded thought. The US may have brought religion into their response, but it was not explicitly Catholic or Jewish or any other religion. Religion is a force that people turn to in order to cope with facts that are irrational -- it gives people hope that somehow, some irrational things will work out in the end. It wasn't our faith that caused us to develop a foreign policy that involved retaliation, but our general culture (pride, patriotism, etc.) that provoked it. I don't think that our response was essentially religious; it was human.
What the aftermath of 9/11 did expose, however, is some religious ignorance on the part of the US. Many people afterwards openly associated Muslims with terrorism, which is clearly not a just connection. Foreign policy should be accompanied by the tools to educate the public as to the rationale behind the policy decision. If that means a clarification as to the religious influences (or lack of religious influences) involved in policy decisions and terrorism, then I think that it should be considered. If something of that nature had already been in place, then maybe then the residents of Bethlehem wouldn't be as opposed to the Center for Islamic Studies as they are now..
What the aftermath of 9/11 did expose, however, is some religious ignorance on the part of the US. Many people afterwards openly associated Muslims with terrorism, which is clearly not a just connection. Foreign policy should be accompanied by the tools to educate the public as to the rationale behind the policy decision. If that means a clarification as to the religious influences (or lack of religious influences) involved in policy decisions and terrorism, then I think that it should be considered. If something of that nature had already been in place, then maybe then the residents of Bethlehem wouldn't be as opposed to the Center for Islamic Studies as they are now..
Lessons of Panipur
Instead of blaming religious conflicts as the main factor behind the riots of Panipur, Roy Roy Roy
Thomas and Roy
The Beth Roy article looks at a specific case to draw some assertions regarding how conflict comes about in communities. Roy argues that individuals consciously choose to be part of communities and behave in certain manners, they choose to be identified by religious identity because of its historical and cultural meaning, and that communities see themselves in a historical context.
Thomas, in his book on the global resurgence of culture and religion, more so focuses on how culture fits in the context of modernity. I believe Roy's arguments fit in the context of Thomas' well and could be useful in furthering explaining the linkages between the evolving role of religion and culture in IR.
Thomas, in his book on the global resurgence of culture and religion, more so focuses on how culture fits in the context of modernity. I believe Roy's arguments fit in the context of Thomas' well and could be useful in furthering explaining the linkages between the evolving role of religion and culture in IR.
Roy article [Seduski, Week 11, Substantive]
I like Painpur's point about how it wasn't necessarily religion which caused fighting and riots between Hindus and Muslisms, it was simply the culture attached to the religious persons in Painpur. The fact is that Hindus and Muslisms have to get along in other areas of the world (I can't name any, but I'm sure not every Hindu and Muslism group hates each other), and thus it is more of a communal conflict than anything else. In this area, Muslisms and Hindus are different nation-states, and while they have defined their nations by religious differences, it is not the root cause of the fighting. Rather, the fighting takes place due to the fact that both nations are struggling for power. They have both created an "other" which they direct their aggression and hatred towards. What's important to remember is that religion didn't cause this conflict, it is simply the main distinction between the two groups (in my opinion).
EU-Turkey According to Hurd [Yoo, Week 11, Substantive]
I find it particularly interesting that the EU-Turkey issue is much deeper than simply economic or political. Of course, issues like Cyprus are important. However, the main issue at hand is the identity of Europe. Some people consider the Turkey issue a grave one that can be a catalyst for the end of Europe. The French President suggested Turkey is not a European country. But why? Hurd suggests it is because of religious issues. The EU and Turkey can both be seen as secular institutions. As secular institutions, religion shouldn't play an issue at all. Hurd disagrees; she suggests that secularism is "a series of interlinked political that continually seek to transform and reinstitute a sociopolitical order basis of a set of constitute norms and principles." I interpret this as meaning that secularism takes different forms based on the region's norms and principles. I also interpret this as meaning Turkey, even as a secular society, has norms and principles that are incompatible with European norms and principles; thus, their secular institutions differ, resulting in difficulties admitting Turkey into the EU. After reading this article, I can better understand the true issue at hand. I find it suiting and understandable how Europe is having difficulties accepting Turkey with open arms.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Hurd and Turkish Accession
Nobody can deny that Turkey is going to have a hard time becoming a member of the EU, partially because it is a Muslim country. Hurd makes many valid points about how that Europe's Judeo-Christian tradition as well as the concept of laicism have shaped Europe's form of democracy in direct and specific ways. Turkey consciously and distinctly modernized and secularized after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, which makes it unique from most Muslim countries. Turkey does not seem to fit in the Middle East or in Europe. Hurd mentions that a strong military presence within Turkey, helps to ensure its continued secularization. The Turkish people do not necessarily fall in line with the government's opinion that Turkey should be such a consciously secular nation. Particularly, Turks are disillusioned with the prospects of joining the European Union.
Huck lays out several reasons why the EU would be hesitant to allow Turkey to join that have nothing to do with religion. These reasons include insufficient democratization and civil rights, unemployment, the dispute in Cyprus, and economic concerns. She also mentions that it would be difficult to integrate Turkey into CAP, especially now that Poland and other post-communist countries have joined. There are also immigration issues, and worries about Turkey's neighbors. Thus, it is understandable why that Turkey is not yet member. Turkey would get more out of becoming a member of the EU then the EU would get out of Turkey joining. If Turkey had more to offer in the economic sphere, and was less of a political risk then the religious issues would be less of a problem.
Huck lays out several reasons why the EU would be hesitant to allow Turkey to join that have nothing to do with religion. These reasons include insufficient democratization and civil rights, unemployment, the dispute in Cyprus, and economic concerns. She also mentions that it would be difficult to integrate Turkey into CAP, especially now that Poland and other post-communist countries have joined. There are also immigration issues, and worries about Turkey's neighbors. Thus, it is understandable why that Turkey is not yet member. Turkey would get more out of becoming a member of the EU then the EU would get out of Turkey joining. If Turkey had more to offer in the economic sphere, and was less of a political risk then the religious issues would be less of a problem.
Hurd's Article
Hurd does something very interesting in her paper. She begins by claiming to examine the "cultural basis of European opposition to Turkish accession to the EU" but ends up blending the boundaries between religious influences and politics and culture. Generally, she claims, Western views towards religion is secular -- the separation of church and state -- and so the West views religious influences as incompatible in the realm of politics. Her whole paper, however, seems to revolve around binary relationships with religion. For example, without religion, there would be no secular state. Simply choosing to separate religion from politics is a policy choice, and so involves religion. She also lets on that it is religious history that makes up a national identity and culture.
One particular passage I found intriguing was Hurd's description of the laicist view of Turkey's accession to the EU, that it "will progress incrementally through a series of stages of development, culminating in its full "Europeanisation." Considering that the basis of the laicist view is the "attempt to purge religion from politics" and "state control of religious institution and expression," I thought it ironic and necessary to point out that this concept of "Europeanisation" is much reminiscent of the process of "civilization" in the colonial era, and the quest to spread Christianity to less civilized populations. The simple attempt to purge religion from politics and to control it in such a manner is allowing religion to influence policy. Forcing such policies on others is no better than telling a person how he or she must think about religion -- it's just put into a political context.
One particular passage I found intriguing was Hurd's description of the laicist view of Turkey's accession to the EU, that it "will progress incrementally through a series of stages of development, culminating in its full "Europeanisation." Considering that the basis of the laicist view is the "attempt to purge religion from politics" and "state control of religious institution and expression," I thought it ironic and necessary to point out that this concept of "Europeanisation" is much reminiscent of the process of "civilization" in the colonial era, and the quest to spread Christianity to less civilized populations. The simple attempt to purge religion from politics and to control it in such a manner is allowing religion to influence policy. Forcing such policies on others is no better than telling a person how he or she must think about religion -- it's just put into a political context.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Tip on labeling
You don't have to go back and edit each individual post. You can just click on the check box and then drop down the label box at the top and select "add new label" (or something like that) and then input your name.
HOW TO ADD LABELS
Unfortunately, every individual is going to have to go back and EDIT his/her individual post in order to add a label. A label is a keyword which shows up at the bottom of each post. When you click the label, all posts with that certain keyword shows up under one page. This appears to be the only way to satisfy the blogging requirement. In order to add a label to your previous posts, follow these steps:
1. Log in, Go to DASHBOARD.
2. Under 'Manage Your Blogs', click Manage: 'Posts'. It is on the bottom right of the white box.
3. Find all the previous posts made by you, click EDIT (on the left side).
4. Once the page loads up, at the bottom-ish there should be a place to input your label, next to "Labels for this post:"
5. Your label should be your name.
I am unsure if KP is still requiring us to edit ALL the titles to Title [name, week, dialogue/reflective] even if there is the ability to bring up all posts by user.
Sorry guys, I know it is a pain in the butt but I think this will be the only way to bring up all posts by authors. I looked at all the other blogs and they are going to have to do the same thing unless I am mistaken.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks.
1. Log in, Go to DASHBOARD.
2. Under 'Manage Your Blogs', click Manage: 'Posts'. It is on the bottom right of the white box.
3. Find all the previous posts made by you, click EDIT (on the left side).
4. Once the page loads up, at the bottom-ish there should be a place to input your label, next to "Labels for this post:"
5. Your label should be your name.
I am unsure if KP is still requiring us to edit ALL the titles to Title [name, week, dialogue/reflective] even if there is the ability to bring up all posts by user.
Sorry guys, I know it is a pain in the butt but I think this will be the only way to bring up all posts by authors. I looked at all the other blogs and they are going to have to do the same thing unless I am mistaken.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks.
Blogging note..
Hey, Deme -- can you add labels to the the layout/template so Prof. Pervez can click on them from the main page? Thanks! -- Agata
Friday, November 9, 2007
High and Low Popular Culture [Schulman, Week 11, Dialogue Post]
Low culture and high culture have both shifted with globalization. Dostoevsky is not read by masses of people because it is a difficult book that one must dedicate a lot of time and thought to reading. It is also not a page turner. It does not fit with our instant-gratification popular culture. It is not globalization's fault that high culture is not what translates. By definition almost, hight culture is not for most people. It takes works to value. The reason people may not read as much is not the fault of globalization. It is the fault of modernization. In 16th century England there was not much to do so people valued the few books they had and read them out loud because it was one of the only forms of entertainment. Now, society is overwhelmed with outlets of instant entertainment. It is this modernization part of globalization that has also allowed amazing access to any foreign entertainment. Thus, it is modernizations fault that we have short attention spans would often rather watch T.V., but without modernization we couldn't have access to other countries low or high culture if wanted. Modernization has also allowed people from various cultures to learn, be influenced, and even have dialog with scholars or artists in other cultures that can allow new and interesting high and low culture to be established.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)