The state's ego -- not so benign

Nandy makes a strong point that the concept of poverty alleviation has primarily become a defense mechanism of the ego -- our methods of "helping" the situation are actually worsening the "problem" of poverty by pushing it into the category of destitution. When applied to the state, Nandy claims that the poor are marginalized because once the proportion of the population living in poverty diminishes enough, that population no longer has any political pull within the government, and so the problem is pushed aside.

I agree with Nandy that development as a state strategy is either ineffective or only effective to a point, but I don't think that in the case of the state, that it is a form of protection of the ego. I do not believe that the state always acts in an ethical way but that it puts up a superficial front that it is acting so, which is necessary for political survival. It is the people within the state that have these moral dilemmas, and in order to please the people and maintain votes, a government must only appear to be addressing the problem to a certain extent. State intentions are not ethical, and so end results are not very effective (as Nandy argues) and this may be due to the superficiality of state action. NGO's more so represent a body with ethical conflictions over poverty and so their intentions are more ethical. Nandy should next evaluate the effectiveness of NGO action -- can true ethical intentions lead to more effective results? If so, the general population should shift support towards NGO efforts; they would still be doing the same to protect their egos while maybe actually accomplishing something as a byproduct.

Ethics: Poverty... and the American Dream [Yoo, Week 8, Substantive]

Nandy's article points out some startling facts. He claims that poverty will not be eliminated through development, and that even in the United States, 11% of the population has consistently stayed in poverty. In New York City, 25% of all children live with incomes below the official poverty line. Nandy suggests that one reason these facts appear invisible is because insensitive elites control the American power system. Or, are these statistics misleading? Can American poverty be equated with the poverty as we know it? Meaning, poverty in Asian and Africa?

When I read this article, I kept thinking of the American Dream. Particularly, I was reminded of some excerpts of Heather Johnson's book, "The American Dream and the Power of Wealth: Choosing Schools and Inheriting Inequality in the Land of Opportunity". Johnson, an assistant professor here at Lehigh, interviewed many people from wealthy backgrounds, as well as those from poor backgrounds. One consistency she found was that all individuals adhered to the vision of 'the American Dream'. It was interesting to see that for even those people of wealth who had primarily inherited their money, they believed the wealth they gained was mainly due to their hard work. Of course, we should be wise to know that even in our 'equal society', our birthright has a huge impact of how we grow up. As a society that values 'the American Dream', it's no wonder that the impoverished are marginalized in this society. If they are poor, it's only because they didn't work hard enough, right?

Poverty vs. Prosperity

Nandy brings up a very important point in his article, “The Beautiful, Expanding Future of Poverty,” stating that poverty is not the problem, our idea of prosperity is. It is true that despite years and years of prosperity, the world still is plagued with the problem of poverty. While Nandy lists a bunch of possibilities as to what states could do in order to reduce poverty -- like getting rid of nuclear armament for the United States, and for buying cheaper grain instead of consumer goods and military products for India – he goes on to say that no matter what states do, there will always be poverty. Poverty is kind of like a social norm, or a binary relationship, such that wherever there is prosperity there will inevitably be poverty. In addition Nandy states that, “Many communities did not know they were poor until development agencies told them so.” (116) It seems to me that not much has be done in the war against poverty, and as Nandy says, it seems that instead of fixing old problems, only new, modernized forms of poverty have been added to the world’s problems.

Poverty is also becoming more of an economic issue, rather than an ethnic or cultural problem. Those that are rich in the United States are very different than those that are considered rich in Third World countries. It is the same with the poor; it changes relative to the country you are considering. World views are constantly changing, as is the perception of what a “normal” life should be. It is hard to qualify at this point those that are living in poverty, because there seem to be some many different levels of poverty. While Nandy blames everything to be economically related, I don’t think that you can entirely count out cultural and ethnic factors. It is without a doubt that those living in Third World countries, with different cultural and ethnic customs than us in the United States, will have a different poverty line. And even though people are trying to come up with solutions to the poverty problem it will no doubtedly require some sort of “sacrifice” of those not living in poverty. While we would like to say that we want to help others that are in need, it is difficult to change one’s standard of living. It is very hard to take away the comforts most of the United State’s citizens are used to since they have grown so accustomed to them. Then again, poverty is not the problem according to Nandy, prosperity is.

equality of values

We discussed in class that feminists do not necessarily think that traits associated with females is different than traits associated males, but rather that the international system would work better if both male and females traits were employed in decision making. This is an interesting point because it is less focused on women and more focused on gender. There is nothing wrong with the fact that Hillary Clinton chooses to project a masculine image and policy if that is what she believes is the most effective way to lead. If she is only acting more masculine because it is the only way to get elected and function in the United States government and international system then there is more of a problem. The way that certain values are associated with masculinity could make it harder to shift toward leading through the implementation of values more associated with femininity. It would be easy for competitors to attack the candidate as weak, but at the same time if more traditionally feminine values proved an effective way to rule and keep a state secure, then other leaders would be willing to use these values, as well.

Making fun of 'The It' [Yoo, Week 7, Dialogue]

I wonder if its possible to come to a valid conclusion about gender. I mean, I am a male, so I've grown up learning masculine expectations. I've grown so accustomed to them; it seems natural, regardless of whether I agree or disagree. Its not about me agreeing or disagreeing, its just essential.

Interesting but horrible story: At Pandini's, my friends and I always make fun of one of the workers. Why? Because we cannot determine his/her sex. We call him/her 'the it' and we laugh about it as if its the most hilarious thing in the world. YES, we are being insensitive jerks, but I think everyone can relate. When we are confronted with something unknown, its only natural that we become uncomfortable with it. Maybe if we lived in a society that was less pro or anti, 'the it' wouldn't have to deal with our snickering. What would the women do?

Gender and Language

When discussing gender dichotomy in world affairs, it is interesting to examine how cultural linguistics produce different ways of thinking about gender. This is called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In English, third-person singular pronouns categorize gender, although there is no noun-gender and adjective agreement, as in French, Italian, Spanish, or German, who categorize all objects and adjectives as masculine or feminine. This suggests that the Italians, for example, focus more on gender differences than Americans. Language affects the way people think, which filters into social interactions.

Men & Women in the Military

The discussion after yesterday’s presentation brought up an interesting point when it comes to men and women in the military. While the idea that enemies could use rape as a military weapon against women is very disturbing and unfortunate, I think it’s fairly close-minded to completely disregard that men taken into captivity are also tortured. I feel that if women know the consequences of what they are getting into when trying to enter the military, they should be allowed to. I also feel though, that if women can’t keep up and don’t meet the necessary requirements for the military, they should be kept from active duty. It’s not about equality, its just common sense that someone without the necessary physical and/or mental strength shouldn’t be allowed in a dangerous situation where they wouldn’t be able to handle themselves.

Reflection on Class 10.25

The Gender group addressed the dichotomy between masculine and feminine qualities. What they were describing sounded like a zero some game- with the interdependence of the gender game, there is a winner and loser. Whenever someone displays more masculine traits, they are ultimately failing to display feminine traits.

On another note, they concluded that feminism demands the reconstruction of all of society. How feasible is that idea?

hard power vs. soft power

An interesting question was raised in class on Tuesday as to the correlation between soft/hard power and femininity/masculinity. I think that it would be an accurate judgement to say that women are generally associated more with soft power and men with hard power in the world of international politics. As Enloe also mentioned, many women are behind the scenes negotiating through NGO's or labor unions or enacting their political influence in other ways through soft power. She also mentioned that these women are not highly visible, and so they are continually suppressed. It is interesting to note, however, that this may not be the case. Distribution of power between men and women may be closer to equality than Enloe makes it out to be. What she does not adequately address is the kind of power women exert. Who is to say that one form is better and more effective than the other? The UN, for example, recognizes the power of women in society by setting up programs where money is given directly to the women rather than the men in the family. Although in these third world countries the male is often the head of the household, the UN trusts that women are more likely to spend the money on their families and social infrastructure that will improve their society and so they empower the women. Applied to Enloe's argument, I think that men simply tend to be the drivers of a different kind of power -- hard power -- which is of a significantly greater visible nature.

Feminism GOOOO

When I read Enloe’s Conclusion: The Personal is International I can’t read more than ten lines without wanting to tear apart the article, figuratively and literally. I was skeptical of feminist arguments prior to the reading; I believe looking at the role and position of women in international politics to be a good and important lens of analysis, but not as the preeminent explanation for why the world is the way it is. After reflecting on Enloe’s argument I came to my own conclusion; I am still not a feminist. Much like Chris, I found the arguments to be unfounded and obscure.

The “international is personal” motif makes sense as it implies that private relationships and personalities have the ability to affect foreign affairs (ie look at Bill Clinton’s new role as an “ambassador” to the world- people love his personablity, he is trying to reshap eour image aka pull support Hillary…). Enloe’s next argument then goes about saying diplomats need wives to provide them with unpaid services so they can build relationships with other diplomats. First of all, what the heck does that have to do with the previous assertion? Secondly, wives are not political pawns of their husbands. What about female diplomats- do their husbands provide unpaid services so their influential spouse can build relationships?

When have women ever been taught that international politics is too remote and complex for the female mind to comprehend? Where do we hear femininity’s values are weak and illegitimate? How and why have prominent female leaders’ decisions been twisted so that they are deemed manly? I may be an outlier, but I’m not hearing it from the academic pulpit. And I certainly don’t ACTUALLY see it playing out in the international system.

Enloe ends with saying that feminism will bring about a more realistic approach to international politics. I’m trying not to chuckle. I feel feminist theory is anything but a realistic analysis of the system.

Enloe Conclusion

There are several points and one great example I have to make about the Enloe conclusion article. The point of her argument is that relationship that women have been looking at for years as a product of society are really about unequal distribution of power against women. Not only are these systems designed to keep women down, but they are backed up with public authority. Some of her examples seem to make sense (i.e. rape is more about power than any kind of desire, and doctors have the power they do because the public gives it to them). However, she ends up warping her original statement of "the personal is political" into "the international is personal." By making this statement she uses the example that the government uses women as sexual partners for soldiers to keep their masculinity up. The she goes further to state that governments actively use power to keep women out of roles so they can maintain the illusion of feminine sacrifice.

I know hyperbole is the best way to make a point, but this seems a little over the top to me. Maybe it's a generational thing, I didn't grow up seeing discrimination against women, but I just don't see much evidence that the government, or society for that matter, is making an active effort to keep women down. Sure there are some nut-jobs out there that crusade for inequality, but very few take them seriously anymore. I believe the exact opposite about Enloe's original point, that relationship ARE a product of society and not based on an effort to force one group in subservience. And in an effort to gain sponsorship money, I'm gonna plug a CBS show here and make an effort to prove Enloe wrong by pointing out a few things I saw in Episode 5 of Kid Nation. Episode 5 was about electing new town leaders (the previous ones had been chosen by CBS). I thought this was interesting, because surely these kids had no interest in keeping women in a less powerful role. There's no reason for sexual discrimination in their town. So there were three elections in the town, and in all three boys won (Zach, Guylan, and Anjay).

I feel as though this shows how most elements of democracy are about social construction which Enloe rejects. Perhaps it was just coincidence that three boys won the Kid Nation election, but I see it as part of a societal view. While the kids have no interest in making their relationships about unequal distribution of power, they have grown up in a system where women haven't been as prominent in politics as men. Based on what society shows them, they accept because it's all they've ever known. But I certainly wouldn't chalk this up to the boys on the show (who are outnumbered by the girls 18 to 20) actively trying to keep girls impoverished. Society has told these kids that boys make good leaders, and so that is what they believe and what is reflected in their "society" established for television. While this is a problem in itself, I feel as Enloe's point is more than a little extreme and assumes every man in the world is determined to advance sexual discrimination.

Enloe Response

In the “Interview with Cynthia Enloe,” Enloe discusses that she “pinpointed dilemmas that maybe other people haven’t defined in quite the same way. One of those dilemmas, [she] realized, was how does one make visible mass rapes of women by men as a systematic weapon of war in a way that does not turn those raped women into new commodities: commodities for our angst; commodities for human rights activism; commodities, especially, for galvanizing the next generations of nationalists” (660).
People as commodities certainly generally holds a negative connotation, but how is being a “commodit[y] for human rights activism” a negative implication? The only question that needs to be asked is, how do can “visible mass rapes of women by men as a systematic weapon of war” be prevented, and be stopped? The rape of women as a weapon of war is a serious issue in the world today. It is also an example of why the role and perception of women in different societies is important examine. The reason that men use rape as a weapon of war comes from tradition and perception, and through understanding why it will be easier to try and stop it. It would also be interesting to understand why certain societies do not use rape as a weapon of war, and what gender-relation differences exist between society who do and do not have this tradition. Thus, it is issues like rape as a weapon at war that show the importance of studying international relations from a feminist perspective in certain cases.
Enloe’s thoughts about examining how raped women could be turned into commodities is not compelling, though. It is an example of why many people may be hesitant to listen to feminist theory. Although women as commodities may be another issue in itself, in this case, discussing raped women as a commodity turns the focus away from the real issue. Enloe should examine the problem within the context of the society, not from how the knowledge of the problem will be turned into a commodity by outside parties. The only type of commodity that Enloe lists that is important is the commodity “for galvanizing the next generations of nationalists” because this commodity directly impacts the problem, and seeks to understand how the society involved will react.

Cynthia Enloe is a Raging Feminist

Where to begin? Cynthia Enloe is a raging feminist whose opinion ofglobal politics is so slanted and inappropriate that her argumentdoesn't deserve to be considered academic. She claims that the sexualrelationship between a diplomat and his wife, which she so vulgarlydefines as 'unpaid services', are essential for the man to createpolicy. She claims that soldiers need sexual services as much as theyneed military hardware. This doesn't even make sense. Did Cynthiaever interview a man in her research? An academic argument is invalidunless it offers both sides of an issue and then proves one wrong,empirically and completely. We are on the eve of a woman President inthe most powerful nation in the world. There are women in themilitary, and military bases aren't set up for their proximity tobrothels. This isn't Vietnam anymore.

Cynthia is bold enough to claim that women like Margaret Thatcher havebeen successful because they learned to "think like a man". Perhapsthey were successful because of their intellect, leadership abilitiesand personability. Simply being a woman as well can help a womanachieve power status. Today, maybe a female President is what weneed; who's slight of touch and diplomacy may be less "masculine".This excludes, of course, Condoleezza, who really is a man. She iscorrect though, in stating that it is harder for a woman to excel to aposition of power or political influence. The system perpetuatesitself to keep women down and keep men at the helm. But her argumentof this fact is limited to a few passing sentences.

What is femininity but the polar opposite of masculinity. They areequally destructive and unequal. There must be a balance! The role ofgender in political decision-making must be removed just as religionwas way back when. Positions must be appointed based on a candidate'sperformance. Women have all the same opportunities growing up as men:socially, academically, athletically, etc. They are just as capableof achieving greatness. Perhaps feminists should shift their focusfrom politics to the media, where the main offenses of genderinequality occur, where women are degraded to sexual equipment andunhealthiness is sexy.

Cynthia Enloe takes her argument so far as to state: "Male officialswho make foreign policy might prefer to think in reality they haveself-consciously designed immigration, labor, civil service,propoganda and military bases policies so as to control women." Whatare you talking about? Cynthia Enloe does not suggest a process forchange, only the need for change itself. This conclusion does apiss-poor job of describing the feminist position. It was notrational or academic, but purely rambling. I believe it isinteresting to consider the role of gender in internationalpolitics, but this article did not do the issue justice. HopefullyHooper will clear things up for me.

Social constructions of women in politics

As a feminist, Enloe brings attention to the personal gender struggle for power and says that politics and power have been dominated by men, and that men have used this power to perpetuate the male-dominated world of international and personal relations. Powerful and successful women do exist, she says, but on an international level, only poor, powerless "Third World women" are visible. She makes the conclusion that international politics and national governments are suppressing women by perpetuating the image of a weaker woman.

I disagree with Enloe that women are so suppressed by the male exercise of power in international political relations. I do agree that politics are generally male-dominated, but I don't think that it's so drastically for the reason that women are suppressed. Whether it's a matter of social construction or human nature, women generally do tend to be less concerned with power than men and have other, more 'feminine' motives such as family. Although women may run into obstacles when they choose to enter a male-dominated field, men have the same obstacles in female-dominated fields. Why? Social constructions and human nature. People act in accordance with social constructions generally because they are comfortable, familiar and acceptable, and human nature can help shape social constructions. Women with desires to pursue other paths can do so if they have those qualities necessary for that construction -- whether it's strength, power or personal drive -- they just have to be able to publicly demonstrate those qualities. They may encounter obstacles in getting to high political positions of power because social construction and human nature shows us that men are generally less likely to involve emotion in decision-making and less likely to show weakness, but if a woman can publicly display those qualities, she is more likely to succeed in the political realm.

I agree with Enloe that a greater public emphasis on the stronger, independent, and politically active woman will change social constructions in the political world and allow women to achieve more successes in power politics, but Enloe's argument can be made when dealing with the alteration of any social construction. If this is to be so on an international level, it must happen globally across many male-dominated societies. The point I'd like to make is that some women in certain societies may be content pursuing values other than political power, and that certain qualities just are generally found more in males. The reason for the male-dominated world of international politics is not solely the result of male-exercised power, but it is also partially human qualities and personal preference on the part of the woman, which have contributed in shaping the social construction in the first place. The international is personal, but is so on multiple levels.

Enloe Article [Yoo, Week 7, Substantive]

What can ever be done in order to create a world where men and women are truly equal? I agree with Enloe in that people have the tendency to under-estimate the complexity of women-hood. Enloe says that although all women are affected by the international debt, it doesn't affect all women in the same ways or same degrees. Personally, when I heard this, I feel as if women who are less affected by international debt - due to their stronger and more powerful husbands, are seen as being less sexually institutionalized than those working in sweatshops. I mean, this is what I would like to think. An American suburban soccer mom is suffering less from sexism than a prostitute in Sri Lanka, right? I feel as if women in the US have great political power - aren't they more likely to vote? And aren't women voters actively courted by politicians? Essentially, I cannot offer an opinion of this gender thing Enloe is talking about. I am confused and do not understand what she is saying. The end.

Thoughts on Culture [Yoo, Week 6, Dialogue]

We are always taught of how globalization is making the world smaller and smaller. If teenage girls in Tokyo are wearing designer jeans and listening to Nirvana, does this mean they aren't true followers of designer jeans and Nirvana? I feel the post-colonialism assumes that different cultures and nations share different values. Its almost as if Japanese girls should only wear kimonos and listen to traditional Japanese music. Whenever a culture takes from another, it becomes theirs. There is no separation of culture in our society today. What is American is Japanese, and what is Nigerian is American.

Postcolonialism

I disagree with Lauren that postcolonial theory cannot explain the current system and does not clarify day to day events. Muppidi asks us to understand not only how we will interpret a certain event, but also how other countries will see a different reality in the same event. Understanding how an ally or an enemy perceives reality could have extremely practical uses. If the United States had spent the time to understand how the three different groups in Iraq perceived themselves and each other before attacking, I think that U.S. policy would have been much different, and perhaps some of the civil conflict could have been prevented. Understanding how others define their reality could also be helpful in understand the leadership style of President Ahmadinejad. Why does he say the crazy things he says? When is he serious? When he is just looking for a reaction? He is attempting to create a reality through rhetoric that does not exist. The people of Iran are different than the image he portrays. Understanding the power that rhetoric can have and using it to define reality can be a powerful tool to use to manipulate the international system.

Binary Relationships

During yesterday’s class, I thought that the initial discussion was a great way to open the presentation. It is our nature to assume, based off of our limited knowledge, what we think different places in the world look like. It was an excellent way to show us how we perceive cities outside of the US. Another interesting point was the different binary relationship they presented. While the world is moving toward a more postcolonial order, there are not many relationships that are as easily separated like the relationship between a slave owner and a slave. When presented with the question to come up with another simple binary relationship, like that between religions, it seems that more and more in this world there are more mixtures occurring, instead of more imperialistic hegemons leading the way. No longer are there very many black and white concrete examples, but instead just as the theories tend to mix within countries, it seems that is also the way with many other aspects of world order. While I would have to agree that postcolonial tendencies seem to be rising in popularity in today’s world, I would also have to agree strongly with the argument that Agata presented, in stating that the United States has changed in the view of other countries as not being as imperialistic and strong as it used to.

Reflection Class 10.18

Will in the post-colonialism group presentation addressed Muppidi's belief articulated in The Politics of The Global that we are moving towards a post-colonial world order. This infers that we are not quite there yet.

I can comprehend Muppidi's assertion, but I question its value. If we have three main uses of IR theory, (critique, tool, everyday practice) how relevant is one that addresses a system that fails to exist? True, post-colonialism can shed light on the relationships between states in the future and perhaps predict explanations for states' behavior and development patterns. This theory is, however, unable to explain the current system and does not clarify day to day events.

I just find this theory to be too philosophical and abstract. I also hear dependencia rhetoric when we read/ discuss post-colonialism. I believe this theory is less causal than dependencia, but nonetheless, I still am keying into the principals that the West is modern and imposing their views and their course of development on the colonized or LDCs.

US imperialism

Part of the discussion in class today focused on the identity of the US as an imperial power. The main idea was that they world is not yet in a postcolonial context because the US still exerts imperial powers, not explicitly through colonies, but through its relationships and the true rationale behind its actions. I agree that the US has some imperialistic tendencies and a motivation to maintain its position of power, but I also think that this position is in a period of transition and that the US can no longer continue to act in the way that it has; the world is no longer a place conducive towards this sort of crusading action, and in continuing to act in this way, the US will not be able to maintain the political authority it currently has. For example, especially in the case of invading Iraq, the US provided faulty rationale -- whether it was "weapons of mass destruction", or following through on an old grudge, or anything else -- and just exploited it's position as a superpower. These actions were not very well received by the rest of the world, and respect for the US has declined. Even if the US does act with imperialistic motives in most of its foreign interactions, it isn't able to continue to do so because it is no longer as acceptable to act in such a way. It is questioned and contested by the rest of the world. The good news is, though, that while the rest of the world may now view us in a skeptical light, it is the government that they view in that way, and not the general American public. Presidential elections are coming up, and there may be a chance to change our position in the world... maybe.

Muppidi Explanation [Yoo, Week 6, Substantive]

Was very interested with Muppidi's explanation of the situation when Madeleine Albright was asked whether its worth it for half a million children to die due to economic sanctions. I also somewhat disagree with Muppidi's assertion that if democracy, freedom, and justice are desirable political principles that should underlie global governance, the lowest members of world society should somehow have a voice in these deliberations. Muppidi claims that these people do not have a voice of their own, and only are used by the higher ups as causes or somebody's 'moment to seize'. Although I agree the voices of 'the low' are important (how ironic), I am skeptical because I think Muppidi's argument can lead to a slippery slope of justifying that democracy, freedom, and justice are simply western ideals that should not be imposed upon the third world. I am reminded of the idea of 'Asian values', which has become justification for political injustices in that continent. For example, the outlaw of homosexuality is justified in Singapore by the government as illustrating the country's conservative outlook. Democracy, Freedom, and Justice are all characteristics all states should subscribe to, and I can't help but feel the western way to do things are the right and correct way. Muppidi would obviously call me arrogant and misinformed, however.

Muppidi

Muppidi addresses Scary's notion of "object responsibilities" (282). I found this argument to be particularly interesting. The day-to-day expectations that individuals possess dramatically influence the way we act and perceive the world around us. From a political vantage point, this is evident in the way we believe objects in the colonial order to be similar to the full subjects of that order. Evaluating actors failure to meet expectations allows us greater incite into the practice in the post colonial order.

Although I appreciate Muppidi's use of the Clinton, Bush and Blair throughout the argument, I was wondering if are other Western examples that would suffice. I am curious to see this argument is actually just US-British- crentic because of our imperial role throughout the 20th century. Certainly other states had imperial roles that should be evaluated.

Muppidi Article

Muppidi never seems to make his point very clear about the idea of global governance. There are a few contridictions on how countries should act, specifically relating to when to intervene in another country's affairs. He seems to both try and make the point that a state should be at fault if they a) have too much control over their own affairs and shut the international community out, and b) not interferring in the affairs of a state who has shut the international community out to to detriment of its people. I've always hated the expression about having cake and eating it to (this seems to only require a fork), but this seems a perfect situation in which to apply the basic meaning behind it.

Relating to second part of the statement above Muppidi is also very critical of the United States in his article, using several negative terms to describe how we've sort of imposed our will in the international system in recent years. This is the part of his article I agree most with. While I don't perscribe to the realist view that sovreignty is rigid and pyshical survival is of the utmost importance, I do believe most countries should follow Article 51, even a hegemonic power. It doesn't matter that a political force (such as the United States has become in the most recent years) has an interest in matters in a particular region, it still must take the appropriate channels in order to launch an offensive war (through the Security Council, invoke the Genocide Convention). While the US has suffered a drop in world popularity and certainly has inflicted costs from its imperial rampage, I think Muppidi makes his strongest part during the article's opening paragraphs when he discusses the US.

But still, even with that, I can see now why post-colonialism isn't quite considered a major theory yet. It doesn't seem fully fleshed out, and doesn't have much history to work with.

Muppidi

Muppidi says, “whatever the limited scope of their responsibility in the eyes of political subjects, political objects are different from material objects in being self-reflexive and in possessing a historically endowed sentient awareness. So looking at the ways in which subaltern actors fail to deliver on their expected responsibilities can allow us an entry into the meanings and practices productive of post colonial global orders” (283).
This idea can help us to understand subaltern actors, but it can help us to understand the international system as a whole, too. Particularly in a globalized world where there is access to so much information, this concept could be endlessly useful in understanding other countries, as well as understanding the best way for the United States to operate in the international system today. In realist theory, the idea of anarchy in the international system preaches that other nations can only be understood within the context of mistrust, and that security is the top priority of each nation. This concept of security is not explored passed ensuring state sovereignty. Muppidi says that how other nations interpret actions means will change how they perceive themselves and how they will act in the future. Even if each nation is acting first and foremost to maintain security, being “self-reflexive” and “possessing a historically endowed sentient awareness” are going to shape how security is perceived and how it should be maintained. Thus, it is important to understand how all actions within the international system are interpreted not only within the context of your own nation’s interest, but within every context that every other actor will perceive the same action in a different way. How different nations perceive the same action could cause a shift that changes the security needs of your own nation.
The idea of perception matters increasingly and becomes increasingly more complex in contemporary times. We have access to the news in every nation, and we can instantly see how every tiny action is viewed. Who knows why that one small occurrence will become a story that everyone in the world knows, where another occurrence will not be mentioned in one newspaper. In the “war on terror”, these perceptions are so important. The news and myths that children are raised and people hear about everyday help shape their perception of other countries, and thus alter individual and collective actions. Every word that President Bush says can be used as propaganda to rally terrorist action, and likewise events abroad shape American voter’s opinions and shift their opinions, then their votes. There is definitely no way to please all actors in the international system, but understanding the power of perception in altering behavior can help shape strategy.

Global Governance

In Muppidi’s article on global governance, there seems to be a fine line between a state having too much control over others, and then being blamed for not controlling other countries in the way that the world has deemed necessary. In particular, Tony Blair is quoted in the article expressing his idea that democracy, freedom, and justice are all desirable political principles that should underlie global governance. Traditionally, governance has been associated with political authority, institutions, and control. Governance in this particular sense denotes formal political institutions that aim to coordinate and control interdependent social relations and that have the ability to enforce decisions. The problem Muppidi explains, is that “…What we get with Mallaby, Ikenberry, and Blair is global governance without the voice, consent, or participation of those who are to be governed.” Concerning the colonial order of the world, Muppidi states that global governance would both structure the world into the governors and the governed, and also would possess power which would be alloted to subjects of governance but not the objects.

This power, or productive power as Muppidi says, of the subjects of governance relates to the materialization of colonial global orders. However, with this power, comes responsibility. Postcolonial global governance refelects upon actors’ inability to deliver on their expected responsibilities. The institutions and authorities given these powers can unfortunately misread or misunderstand the scope and definition of their power, sometimes creating more problems instead of solving others. In closing, Muppidi talks of anti-war and anti-nuclear movements, and explains that global goverance needs almost a cushion, to leave space for differences and to learn and seek knowledge from others, or else the production of colonial orders of global governance are unavoidable.

Muppidi

Muppidi comes off strong with a negative sentiment towards the colonial influences of the Bush Administration in the first portion of his article. He refers to Mallaby's justification of "neoimperialism" and Ikenberry's critique of the Bush adminitsration's "imperial ambition" to further this sentiment. He also claims that Mallaby's perspective is concerned very little with the right of or costs to the poor, and that both authors claim that there is governance without voice.

While I agree more with Mallaby in that the US stepped into a leading role to to guide failed states rather than Ikenberry's theory of imperial ambitions, I don't think that it is fair to portray the US in such a negative manner. Taking a step back from the US example and looking at systemic qualities, one could recognize the benefits of a hegemonic system. In that sort of a system, the hegemony (the US) is forced to take on excessive burdens (ie. financial and military) in promoting global stability for others. In this capacity, it betters its own economic and political powers, but with the extra costs it takes on, it betters the positions of other states at a quicker rate, allowing them to catch up (hegemonic stability theory). Muppidi's focus in all instances, however, seems to discount any burden that must be taken on by this imperial power. The US has in many instances taken on and enjoyed a leading, policing role in the global context, but this role hasn't come without a price. There are costs, such as with the war on terror, that lie primarily with the US. Meanwhile, other actors have the luxury to stand back and focus on other domestic problems. I'm not saying that US intentions are always benign, and at times, imperial ambitions do come into play, but is it really fair to view the US position in such a negative, authoritative light?

There will always be those who gain less or suffer from a particular power structure, such as the poor, but this is not an imperial goal of the US. Responsibility as a leading power to consider all others does exist, but it is impossible to accommodate all equally. It is difficult to say whether a system better than this "neoimperial" system exists -- one where there can still be order with a greater voice from all actors and a lack of imperial global governance.

Disclaimer: Some of the words were cut off in the process of being copied, so I can't be entirely sure that I got all of the right concepts from the reading.

Random Post

Sitting in my living room watching reruns of Myth Busters I have the sudden inspiration to put my time to good use. I never really took the notion of IR theory as everyday practice for individuals seriously until I actually used the prisoner's dilemma today in a practical decision making process. My friend Jerry has a lab report to finish today with a group in an engineering class. Apprently engineering labs are awful and tedious, especially voluntarily on a friday afternoon (I wouldn't know). He told me he was going to just call his group and tell them he couldn't make it because he was sick, and he would do the bulk of work on next week's lab report. He was following the realist agenda of the game by defecting, supporting the futility of external balancing in realist thought. He was leaving the alliance to maximize his relative gain. However, I explained to him, this isn't just a game you play once with this group, you're in it for the long haul with them, so you will maximize your gain through cooperation. Shadow of the future, Jerry. In the end, I don't think he ever made it to that group meeting, but I accomplished putting my understanding of IR Theory into practical use, something I don't normally have the chance to do.

Constructivism

After our first class on constructivism, I began to think that it wasn't a terrible theory. Of it's tenets it has many points that make a lot of sense. I believe that history is always changing; it depends on who is viewing it in what light. We view Vietnam differently now through the lens of the Iraq War due to the many comparisons that are made between them. I think Prof. Pervez made a good point about how the teacher-student relationship doesn't change, even outside the classroom (including if we possibly meet in a dance club or something). Most things are a social construction. Just think about how the international system sprang about in the 1600s after the Treaty of Westphalia, but the idea of anarchy didn't come around until realism, meaning beforehand it wasn't in existence. It was a social construction and thus suddenly gained importance in the study of IR.
But then I thought it got a little ridiculous when they thought that war is also a social construction. War has been very real since the beginning of human social groups. It isn't just something people think about and accept and therefore it exists. Not EVERYTHING is a social construction. So while constructivism is close to a complete theory, I actually think it takes the main point of its theory a little too far and may take itself too seriously. But that's just me.

Wendt Article Impressions [Yoo, Week 5, Substantive]

"Anarchy is what state make of it."

"The constructivist approach that I will adopt in this chapter is a relational approach, concentrating on an ongoing process of social transaction rather than on the 'norms'."

These 2 quotes, in my opinion, solidified my understanding of what constructivism is about. I feel that realism and liberalism focus on 'norms' and what ought to be, while constructivism takes into account what is happening now. As Agata pointed out, constructivism appears to be a more fluid theory that can change and adapt to different cases.

Particularly, I found it interesting when Jackson asks, "What does it really mean to say that some state acts?" Jackson argues that 'the state' can only exist through the process of legitimization; that is, certain activities, such as collecting taxes or having publically elected officials, legitimates the state itself because the people accept these activities as done by the state. Only if people are convinced these actions are natural can the state itself exist. Which sounds really confusing to me, still. I guess the point is that people have to will themselves to accept the actions of the state. If not, the actions are not legitimate. Therefore, leaders are constantly in the process of rhetoric, trying to convince the population that their actions are the right thing to do. As Rachele pointed out, relational constructivism is constantly in a state of "war of words". I think this is very fitting in today's society especially, since much of the population's interaction with politicians happen through the media. It's not so much important how things are really working, as long as we accept governmental actions that are happening in our daily lives and believe in what the leaders are saying.

For some reason, I find this unsettling. Are we saying that the masses can only be influend through rhetoric and a "war of words"? For some reason, I feel constructivism de-emphasizes the "regular" people in society. I ask, what can we do, as college students, to make the world a "better" place?

War as a Social Convention

Unlike the Realists, Constructivists believe that war is not an inevitable possibility, but instead is a social convention. They believe that war is socially produced, and doesn’t have to deal with physical survival or military capacity. Constructivists seem to have a more general idea of war that is able to account for all different types of war, including religious and cultural conflicts. However, just like the other theories, it doesn’t really account for war of terrorism. Constructivists believe that the laws of war must be taken into account. When a terrorist group looks to strike a state, the Geneva Convention and other laws of war are not followed like the Constructivists say it will.

Constructivists do say that war and their standards can only be held to actors and that there are not guarantees. It seems as though the Constructivists are just trying to cover their ass by saying that there are no guarantees, which leaves the door open for anyone. It also seems to be a bit of a cop out when they do not theorize about the future, like the other IR theories. Though it does make sense that they don’t theorize about the future because everything is constantly changing, that is not always the answer that people are looking for.

Constructivism as a main IR theory

Constructivism is considered one of the three main schools of thought in IR theory, but it is also the weakest of the three. The reason for this is because it is seen as a repetition of long-standing sociological theories simply applied to IR and also because it cannot predict the future actions of states nor the future configuration of the international system. In my opinion, however, I think this theory is the strongest because the world is not as black and white as the realists break it down to be.

As we mentioned in class on the first day, IR theory can be used as a tool to understand international relations, as a critique in examining how situations came about and what can be done to make things better in the future, and as an everyday practice. Constructivism satisfies all three of these conditions. It is a framework for understanding the current international system of states, and it can explain how that system came about. Although it does not make predictions for the future, it allows policy makers to make better decisions for the future based upon past experiences and learned social conventions. Constructivist theory is most of all an everyday practice. In essence, the theory focuses on current contextual situations, which change constantly -- everyday. This reasoning should go to support constructivism as an equal theoretical concept to liberalism and realism.

Is the state a person?

I agree with Jackson's primary assertion in Is the state a person? Why should we care? The state is one of the most fundamental aspects of IR, yet there is little theorizing on the basic object of analysis. Realists, neorealists, neoliberal institutionalists and Marxists all believe states have perceptions, desires, and emotions. Constructivists either choose to lessen the importance of the state in comparison to other actors or focus on how state identity affects state action.

The state as a person needs greater analysis. If we fail to discuss and illustrate the diversity of perspectives of theorists regarding the state, we will truly be unable to have debates on other social, philosophical, and ethical issues within IR. With the state as a focal point of IR theory, we need a more in-depth discussion on the definition, role, and perceptions of the state.