Reflection for Class

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 tried to blame the riots on something other than religion. How can anyone say that religion is not involved? Something that has touched the majority of countries should really get more recognition and should be communicated to others. I agree with Lauren that more knowledge is needed or all religions in order to at least try to respect those that we don’t understand. Without this mutual respect, religious resurgence will never end.

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.

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.

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..

Lessons of Panipur

Instead of blaming religious conflicts as the main factor behind the riots of Panipur, Roy instead blames the riots on cultural and historical meanings attached to the communities. While this is an interesting point, aren’t culture and history part of what makes up a religion? Roy goes on to say to explain the term communalism as, “Tension between Hindus and Muslims is inbred, and so ancient as to constitute unchangeable character.” (126) While she obviously doesn’t agree with the theories of communalism, there are aspects of the theory that must be true. It doesn’t seem possible that every religious resurgence or conflict that has happened in history can be blamed on something other than religion. I agree with Roy when she states that the villagers of Panipur were not swept mindlessly or forced into the behavior that they represented. Instead, they acted upon their own interests, whether religious or not, clarifying that the riots were more complex then most thought. At the very end of the article she even contradicts herself, saying that while religion did figure into the story, she didn’t believe that the fights were religious conflicts. That just doesn’t make sense to me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

High and Low culture

The globalization of low culture is not a problem. People are simply bored with their own popular culture, food or language, and seek out broader perspectives in a world riddled with free press and mutual consequence. Broader networks of communication and information have thinned national borders, but they have also helped preserve and embolden our high culture. Perhaps by sharing our menial traditions with the rest of the world, we keep our higher culture sacred and precious. Chinese religion and philosophy is not the first thing that comes to the average American’s mind when they think China. Mayan temples aren’t the hottest spot for MTV’s Mexican spring break tour. Dostoevsky is translated into every language, and those who have had the pleasure of experiencing his writing find themselves more in touch with postmodern Russian culture than if they drank a fifth of Popov vodka. The assimilation of low culture should be embraced to reduce national(ist) differences and put us more in touch with the way other societies live. It also helps us grasp and protect our high culture and preserve cultural autonomy.

Globalization of Political Culture

We talked a lot in class today about the globalization of culture in terms of popular culture, food and language, but that leaves me wondering about the globalization of political culture. Is it forced or is it natural or is it even occurring? The US often views that the global spread of democracy is inevitable, and that it is in the natural course of events. In support of this view, our government has often taken it upon itself to depose of corrupt leaders and to implement “democratic” elections to facilitate this process. Others, however, tend to view the spread of democracy as a forceful and parochial spread of US political culture. Can it even be called globalization if it’s a forcefully perpetuated series of events? Another example to ponder is that of the EU, which is trying to adopt a common constitution. Is the globalization of political culture occurring on more than just an ideological level, but also on a more concrete level of disintegrating borders? The constant rejection of constitution could prove that countries are actually resistant to the idea of a unified political culture but may be more open towards other kinds of globalization (ie. economical). Personally, I don’t believe that the globalization of political culture is as prominent as other sorts, but I’m curious to see other people’s thoughts.

Class 11.6 Reflection {Volpe, Week 11, Dialogue}

In Tuesday's class Steph discussed major ways we think of globalization in terms of the economy, technology, culture, transnational problems, and citizenship. The notions of an interconnected world market impacted by the instantaneous flow of information across state boundaries where cultural imperialism came into play was not new to me. The idea of global citizenship was, however, new . Unlike many of the other students in the class, I have never really thought of myself under the universal mentality of being a global citizen. Perhaps its the fact that I have not travelled extensively or that I personally don't have many connections outside of the U.S. In hindsight, its interesting to see how globalization has so intimately impacted each of our lives but more so to see the ways that as individuals, we are reluctant to acknowledge how it has shaped us.

Globalization Response

I was very intrigued by the question of whether foreigners take into considered American politics, or just figures of the American government. While studying and working in Shanghai this summer I was taken to several “business dinners,” where I was continually questioned about my take on the Bush Administration. They always found it very interesting that I had not voted for Bush and did not agree with most of the decisions he has made while in office. They would usually show their acceptance of my answers by giving me thumbs up, salutes, and numerous shots. It always seemed very interesting that they knew more about the American government then most Americans do. While globalization has affected and touched almost everyone in the world at this point, I think we almost need more globalization within our own country. The United States seems to be lacking when it comes to global knowledge and the acceptance of global diversity.

Globalism and my Identity [Yoo, Week 10, Dialogue]

During the discussion, I began to ask myself, Do I fit into the image of a typical American? If I went to a foreign country, would the locals deem me American enough? Or would they find themselves disappointed by how not 'authentically' American I am? I believe identity questions are very important when discussing globalization in society. When I go abroad, it will be difficult to answer a question about my identity. Simply describing myself 'an American' would not suffice at all. Dave made a very interesting remark during class; he was arguing that even in the United States, there are regional differences, and that even within our own country we tend to stereotype and view 'the others' as different. We have different expectations of a New Yorker, or a country hick from middle of no where Kansas. I begin to wonder if it is even possible for there to be an 'American' culture, or if 'American culture' is in the hands of a few people working at the higher ranks of McDonalds and Coca-Cola. Is it 'American cultural imperialism' or is it the imperialism of a select few individuals who reside in America? Or, does McDonalds and Coca-Cola represent us?

Morely and Globalization {Volpe, Week 11, Substantive}

In David Morely’s chapter Boarders and Belongings he addresses the notion held by several scholars that “globalization is seen to threaten the integrity of authentic and indigenous cultures and thus to weaken the sense of cultural unity that holds a group together” (207). In my opinion, this aspect, that it has the ability to weaken cultures and ethnic groups, as at the forefront of the globalization debate today. This argument resonates strongly with Islamic fundamentalists who believe the West is polluting their culture. For a more specific example, we can look to Bin Laden’s declaration of jihad against the US due to their occupation of Saudi Arabia in 1996. It can also be seen in the way many in France have reacted to North African immigration to Paris- they view this as an indirect attack on what I would call “Frenchness” or what it means to be a French citizen.

The attack on globalization for its ability to weaken the culture ultimately highlights an underlying problem, in which globalization causes the deterioration of power and influence of the nation-state. I wish Morely had developed this argument in more detail, as I feel that this assertion really needs to be picked apart in greater detail.

Dallmayr Globalization Article [Dave Seduski, Week 11, Substantive]

Dallmyr's main point is shown right in the title of his article, "Globalization and Inequality: A Plea for Global Justice." However the only blame I see is placed upon the United States, which seems to be almost all too easy after all the post we've read. Inequality in an economic sense should not be fully blamed on the US though. In my Globalization and World Politics class, we learned a few statistics about the free trade that comes with the system of global capitalism that the US helped install in the world economy. Despite the fact that almost every country can trade openly, 80% of all world trade occurs between three main areas; North America, the developed areas of Europe, and Japan/South Korea/China. So is the blame really to be placed upon the United States? No, for although we set up the system, everyone else followed along and now we (along with Canada) are but one of three main players.

While Dallmyr/Huntington's main point was that the world should recognize a more global sense of justice and be socially cognisant, there is a concrete approach to help stop this global inequality. Dallmyr could urge countries to try and help to end the conflicts that rage in much of the third world. The war and disease that plague Africa mean few MNCs will want to set up business there, thus limiting exposure to the global economy. In effect, it all comes back to the author's main point, that we need a more global view of matters. Once people realize that we have a duty to be global citizens, then perhaps governments will be pressured to intervene, and then those countries can start to rebuild with foreign direct investment and other help.

Globalization & Inequality

In Dallmayr’s article, “Globalization and Inequality: A Plea for Global Justice,” he continually brings up the books and articles of Samuel Huntington. What cannot be agreed upon in the article is the reason behind the inequality. Huntington believes that, “Despite the persistence of tribal and national rivalries, the conflicts that ‘pose the greatest dangers for stability’ in the world today are those ‘between states or groups from different civilizations.’” (141) While he talks of this class between civilizations, the blame is placed upon the fact that the United States is the hegemonic power and everywhere else in the world are just merely considered the “rest.” The root of all evil, according to Huntington, derives from differences of political power. Dallmayr also states that the previous triggers of culture, those of religious and political philosophical teachings, now face the rapid and ever-growing pace of globalization. However, Huntington goes on to say that, “‘The distribution of cultures in the world reflects the distribution of power. Trade may not follow the flag, but culture almost always follows power.’” (142) Power is the everlasting essence of politics. By recognizing the concerns for social justice and through the widening of globalization, the world will eventually create a sense of global or cosmopolitan justice.

Abu Lughod Article [Emily Schulman; Week ; Substantive/Dialog Post

Abu-Lughod’s article about globalization, stressed that globalization is not simply a westernization of other cultures, rather that both parties are influenced by each other. A globalized culture is different than a homogenized culture. In general, this article has a relatively positive view of the cultural impacts of globalization, but he made certain criticisms that I found strange. He says that we should “develop much more tolerance for the world views of others, no matter how offensive we find them.” This statement has implications. I agree that tolerance is important, especially now that information about different cultures is so readily available, but at the same time if other nations are acting in ways that we find morally unjust, does this statement imply that we should never get involved? Can we not judge leadership style or ethnic violence within countries because they simply reflect a different world view? This statement also implies a pluralist view of the world. Certain worldviews may not encompass pluralism. Being accepting of other worldviews may go against a worldview.
Abu-Lughod continues to say that “Communications have irretrievable shattered the cloisonnéed character of cultural boundaries; there is no longer any place to hide” (135). This concept could have both positive and negative effects. For example, it is good that Milosevic could not hide the violence in Serbia that was based on ethnic conflict. Because the world could see, the violence was stopped. At the same time, problems in Darfur and Rwanda were seen and not stopped. These genocides were not/are not hidden, but it does not seem to matter. The world is highly globalized, but for certain countries it does not seem to matter. It is better to consider them hidden. Do countries need a certain level of modernization, need to be in a certain proximity to a major power or have certain resources in order to truly be part of the globalized world? Perhaps that is the secret to remaining hidden.

globalization and unglobalization

Abu-Lughod’s piece on globalization, although not very thorough in an explanation, culminates with the idea that culture has somehow been simultaneously globalized and unglobalized. This is something I had not thought much about prior to this reading. The communication of cultures across the globe has increased our exposure to various foreign cultures, but this increased exposure only serves to increase our ignorance, given that exposure is often incomplete. As [a very broad] example, the media gives us access to accounts of communist control, sweatshops and high levels of pollution in China, but it tells us less about other aspects of Chinese culture. Even the typical Chinese take-out won’t give you a true glimpse of genuine Chinese cuisine. My point is that yes, we have access to more information from around the world, but as we gain this access, we have to take the extra step to complete the picture. By having so much more incomplete information about the world, we have so many more misconstrued or incomplete conceptions of what other cultures are like because in areas of uncertainty, people tend to fill the space in with what they do know – familiar ideas that make sense from their own cultural standpoint. To tie this back into the class on ethics and economic globalization, it’s like finding out that people are being paid very low wages in a third world country. This causes outrage and a push for change. What people don't realize, though, is that for that third world country's standard of living, such pay can be relatively high, and increasing cost of labor would only serve to decrease competitive advantage in the global economy, which would put everyone out of a job. People make judgements based on their own understanding of the world. Given a bit of information, it may be impossible to completely step out of one's existing constructions of the world, but the process of globalization hits us with a simultaneous increase in responsibility to fight ignorance.

Borders and Belongings

The author of this article does a fine job of summarizing everyoneelse's opinion of globalization into a coherent debate. Essentially,there are two thought processes that predict the future of global culture. First, there are those who believe that the global flow ofinformation, investment, trade and people across borders will create a"borderless world". These theorists argue that global capital marketswill dominate the policies of national governments and thenation-state will dissolve. The globalization of markets will createmultinational brands and modes of thought, making cultural autonomy athing of the past. Borders will be determined by televisionsatellites, radio signals, newspapers and magazines. It's a bitsevere, but makes complete sense. However on the other side of thecoin, some argue that the nation-state is not in decline, and that the globalization argument is too Eurocentric. The actions of WesternEurope to integrate do not represent the future of the world.Instead, borders will be determined by civilization. I like this argument more, as the earliest symptoms are already present. Thosecountries who share a cultural affinity cooperate with each other, andthose of different ideologies will cooperate and clash with others.This is evident in the growing anti-Western sentiments in many Arabic countries. Times are a changing.

Note to group 4:

So apparently, bringing up posts by the author was a requirement for this assignment... which apparently, isn't possible using blogger.com (...which was the service suggested in the syllabus). So, I guess unless we find a solution somehow, we're all going to have to go back and edit post titles to "Title [Your Name; Week X; Substantive/Dialog Post}". If anybody has experience with this, please leave a message so that I can give you admin status, so you can go into settings and mess around with it.

Dallmayr's Thoughts on Globalism [Yoo, Week 9, Substantive]

According to Dallmayr, "globalization in its present form fosters or enhances social inequality." I can definitely see how this can be true; as a member of American society, I have more access to education and more access to learning about the world in general. Even more so, as a university student studying International Relations, I am forced into a situation where being ignorant of the world is unacceptable. I don't think it is far fetched to argue that as a Lehigh student, we are in a position to enhance our lives through globalization. For example, things made in China are cheaper. As consumers, we can take advantage of it. I feel Dallmayr focuses too much on America being a entity harming other countries through globalization. We cannot label 'America' as a single entity that enhances inequality; due to globalization, there are Americans who have lost their jobs.

NYT Article

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/us/05bar.html?_r=2&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

This New York Times article addressed Ms. Alima Traore request to be granted asylum in the U.S. This woman from Mali was denied asylum on the grounds that the genitalia mutilation inflicted upon her as a child, though horrible, could not be repeated and was not a good enough reason. Her fear that her daughters would be subject to the same atrocities was also not grounds for asylum according to the panel. The physical and psychological damage from the mutilation were not grounds for a U.S. educated nurse to be granted asylum, so it made me wonder what kinds of circumstances do provide grounds for asylum?

Ms. Traore will also be forced into an arranged marriage with her first cousin upon her return to Mali. Traore does not want to return as "women have no voice... and men have all the control." This clearly reminded me of the gender-orientated theory debate within IR.

Comments on the article welcome!

Fair and Unfair at the NFL [Yoo, Week 8, Dialogue]

I caught myself nodding my head to Agata's argument. Her example about Starbucks was especially intriguing, and reminded me about something I had read about in Economics 1. In economics, something we learn about is that in general, customers make rational decisions. An economist by the name of Alan Krueger studied the question of why the NFL does not charge a price for Super Bowl tickets that is high enough to make the quantity of tickets demanded equal to the quantity of tickets available. Although the price of a Super Bowl ticket is high, there still is enough demand that even if the tickets were priced way higher, the tickets would still sell. In a true theoretical market economy, the NFL should charge a price way higher than currently, and still sell every single ticket. Yet the NFL does do this. In fact, they go through the difficulty of allocating 500 pairs of tickets to give ordinary fans a chance to attend the game. More than 36,000 apply. Scalpers have sold tickets for as much as 5,000 dollars. Even with this extraordinary demand, a survey found that fans would deem is 'unfair' if the NFL raised the price of tickets to 1,500 dollars instead of 400 dollars regularly. Interestingly, a question asked people how much they were willing to pay as well. Even 83% of those who said they would pay up to 1,500 said raising the price would be unfair. Krueger concluded that whatever the NFL might gain in the short run from raising ticket prices. it would more than lose in the long run from alienating football fans.

Even though this is a rather superficial example, it leads me to ask the question: Is being ethical a rational decision, or a behavioral one? I'm thinking that perhaps being ethical is a behavioral decision, and that being ethical is an economic one. You might say being ethical is what ought to be, while being not is what is.

Ethics and Famine

The Ethics group raised a very important issue concerning why and how famines actually start in the first place. Although many famines coincide with national or regional shortages of food, famine has also occurred amid plenty. They can also occur on account of acts of economic or military policy that have deprived certain populations of sufficient food to ensure survival. At first, I thought it was very weird that they asked the class if providing aid to countries experiencing famines was considered ethical or unethical. I immediately thought that just the act of giving aid should be considered ethical, however, after their presentation and during our discussion, there are definitely many aspects of aid and giving that can be viewed as unethical. While the concerts and bracelets promote awareness, it is disconcerting that we need to receive something in order to give. Instead of just giving for the sake of giving, most people need to receive something back almost like a reward or gift for helping others. Unfortunately, while this is not the best scenario, at least people can learn about the problems the world faces, and there is some good that comes from the concerts and publicity.

Do ethics matter?

It is interesting to look at the irony behind ethics. It's everywhere from people's need to receive something in return for their charity, such as a bracelet or a t-shirt, to raising awareness, which many people, once they achieve this awareness and wear their pink shirts, don't actually do anything further for the cause. When I was in London this past semester, Starbucks had a day that they were giving out free small cups of coffee. What kind of coffee were they giving away? Free trade. I'm not sure exactly why they did this -- maybe they were trying to demonstrate the quality of fair trade coffee while hoping to drive up sales -- but all of this irony in itself seems unethical.

The question I'd like to ask, then is do ethics really matter? Some might argue that ethics don't matter so long as at least something is being done to help a problem, but I'd like to argue that it's the ethical side in all of us that at least pushes us into a little bit of action. States and corporations generally put up fronts to perpetuate a benevolent image, but the people behind the state create this need to satisfy an ethical longing in the first place. No matter how small or how full of irony this longing is, it's something, and as long as it exists, NGO's or Foundations can learn to use it to their advantage -- even if that involves giving out a few stickers or pens in return. Who cares if that's ethical or not? It's getting something done. Ethics do matter, but at different levels and at different points in the game.

Ethics discussion

When discussing the most ethical way to give foreign aid in case of famine, I realized that is frustrating to think about the hypocrisy and inefficiency involved, but at the same time it is an inevitable part of giving at this point. We discusses in class that America's materialistic society makes it impossible to give without receiving anything in return. The return does not have to be material, it could be status. If is accepted that governments and private organizations are going to act immorally, even when they are being charitable, then we can solve the problem through regulation, rather than just hoping that these institutions will act ethically on their own. Lavish parties to celebrate accomplishments within organizations could be prevented if they were given bad press or it disqualified them from tax breaks. At the same time, if people need bracelets in order to donate money, then give them bracelets. It would be more unethical to not give bracelets because people are donating for selfish reasons, and then not receive the donations that could help people.

Nandy Response

Nandy says that “the presently trendy slogan of globalization can be read as the newest effort to disguise both the declining political clout of the historically disadvantaged and an interest in poverty” (107). It is true that globalization has destroyed the chances of any non-industrialized state to live in peaceful non-destitute poverty and relative isolation. Pressure to industrialize and involvement of foreign, powerful nations has shifted the dynamics of poverty and the perception of poverty. The problem I had with this article was that Nandy offers no suggestions. He attacks the West for not dealing with the problem of worldwide policy, but does not discuss the best way to solve the problem. Nandy says that the money to solve the problem of poverty exists, and that wealthy nations suppress their guilty, but just having the money is not a solution in itself. There are many complications when donated wealth is distributed within a country. It requires much more than writing a check.
Nandy also criticizes the trend of impoverished nations to try to liberalize and modernize in order to shift and neglect the poverty problem without actually solving it. It is hard to get the money to people who actually need it. Countries with destitution often have corrupt governments that will try and hoard the money. It is also complicated to figure out how the money will be absorbed into society. Too much money in a poor and simple economy at once could prove disruptive. Globalization is also an inevitable trend that is unlikely to reverse. Discussing its negative effects on poor countries is not going to solve any problems. The problem of poverty must be faced within the context of the contemporary world order.
Nandy also says, “Particularly in a democracy, numbers matter, and once the number of poor in a society dwindles to a proportion that can be ignored while forging democratic alliances, the political parties are left with no incentive to pursue the cause of the poor” (110). Currently, democracies tend to have less poverty than other forms of government. It is a problem that politicians in democracies ignore the problem when it is not pressing, but isn’t the fact that the poor is only a small proportion more important than this tendency to neglect the small number?

Nandy Article

Nandy's article rails against poverty, however it seems to accept the fact that it will always be in existence. While he describes poverty as a moral issue, he always seems to realize that poverty will need to detatch itself from other issues such as disease, war/ethnic cleansing, etc. In saying all of this he goes on to make the point that perhaps we will have to live with poverty, but that destitution is the real problem (extreme poverty). However where morals come into this is the fact that the concept of eradicating world poverty has sort of become the default "do good promise" of the state. It uses the ethics that it will help to stop poverty to blind itself to the fact that it's not really doing anything constructive to help the world's poor.

As always, I agree with certain parts of the article. Those currently in the IR120 class which meets right after ours, led by Prof. Menon, will have read more than they wish on global poverty. I particularly liked Jagdish Bhagwati logic to the situation. He studied the rates of the poor in many countries, and realized that the bottom X percent always get Y portion of the nation's wealth (where Y is only a fraction of X). After realizing that the percentages of what deem "the poor" is pretty much the same in all countries, he realized that no matter how the state shifts around incomes and has policies that it thinks is helping the poor there is only one partial solution to the problem; if you can't change the percentage of the pie that some people get to make sure they have more, you must simply grow the size of the pie so their piece is bigger (if not relatively, then absolutely). So there are some instances in which a state can have certain policies that help the poor... by helping the rest of the economy.

And as for the fact that the state has no morals, that is probably true. But the state isn't supposed to have morals, it should act in the interests of his own citizens. And if those citizens have the drive to do something to help the world's poor, that's where the charity and money should come from. Think Bill and Melinda Gates, think Bono, who shared Time's Person of the Year in 2005. So it should be those in the state who benefit from it's policies rather than the state itself whose job it is to help the world's poor. The state has no conscience, and thus doesn't have morals. But in a democracy, the people can push the state to have morals.

Nandy and MDGs

Ashis Nandy argues that development will not lead to an end of poverty. She suggests that the idea of a decline in poverty, real or imagine will defy economists and need its own autonomy from other issues. She argues that poverty is less cultural and more economic nowadays She argues that liberal democratic institutions insure some will always poor, and that there development-oriented reforms always lead to destitution. She supports eradicating destitution, and living with poverty.

This led me to wonder how the author feels about the UN's Millennium Development Goal to end hunger and extreme poverty. (In the nearer term, it hopes to cut the number of people in extreme poverty, less than a dollar a day, in half and cut in half the number of people suffering from hunger).

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.