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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Global Governance

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

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

War as a Social Convention

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

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

Constant Change

Of all the theories we have gone over in class, I think that Constructivism relates more to the world that we live in today, primarily because of the idea that change is always constant. It makes perfect sense that because actors are always acting, there will be in change and vice versa. The idea of acceptable action also seems to tie in with current international relations; it is true that during every possible moment there are always two different choices that a leader, state, etc could make – that of change or not to change. Instead of looking at self-interest or the threat of punishment, Constructivists actually believe in rules and think that the rules are an extension of their identity.

Relational Constructivism

Jackson brings up a crucial point when he talks about the issue of legitimation, and the fact that it is usually overlooked in both the realist and liberal analyses when it comes to international relations. Legitimation refers to the process whereby an act, process, or ideology becomes legitimate by its attachment to norms and values within a given society. It is the process of making something acceptable and normative to a group or audience. Jackson refers to the Kosovo bombing of Albanian refugees and the impact and reactions of many different states and international organizations as to the repercussions of the bombing. He refers to relational constructivism as a “war of words,” which I tend to agree with, considering the large amount of public pronouncements and speeches that were given about the legitimacy of the bombing.

Constructivism seems to be contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. Jackson states, “…A relational constructivist approach enables analysts to focus on how questions of authority and legitimacy are negotiated in practice.” While the words of leaders are extremely important in swaying the bias of a state, I still feel that the old saying is truer, that actions speak louder than words. Sometimes it seems that today the only thing that those in charge do is talk. It even seems that way when we look at the other “isms” that we already went over; they continually talk of a need for world peace, but yet they really don’t put forth an idea for action toward such a future.

Religious Wars

During our discussion in class on Thursday, it seems that we bypassed the significance of religious wars and the complete lack of acknowledgement to them by the different international theories. A religious war is a war justified by religious differences. It can be the forces of one state that has an established religion against those of another state with either a quite different religion or a different sect within the same religion, but it could also be at the level below a state. It can be a faction motivated by religion attempting to spread its faith by violence either within the state or elsewhere. While the different theories that we have gone over prove why world peace has never happened, they still do not come up with concrete advice or steps to obtain peace. Even though the theories don’t touch upon religious wars and conflicts, I think it is highly unlikely that we will ever be able to achieve world peace. Even if states somehow find a way to all co-exist happily within their governmental realms, this does not take into account the severe differences of religion from state to state and region to region that would make it impossible for them to agree on every aspect of international relations.

Haas's Empirical Generalizations

In Haas’s attempt to explain empirical generalizations and their limits, he initially starts out with a paragraph stating that none of these generalizations are really “true” per say, but are instead just verified. He labels them as “imperfect pretheories” of regional integration, and continues on to say that they are a mixed jumble of terms that lack any hierarchy of terms, constructs and concepts. This only helps to prove the criticism that functionalism is teleological, that is it attempts to describe social institutions solely through their effects and thereby does not explain the cause of those effects. Functionalism has no concept of change and is unable to account for stuctural contraditions, conflict, or social changes.

Haas seems to contradict himself, where after miticulously going through the different empirical generalizations, such as mutual interdependece, industrialized-pluralistic nations, and late developing nations, he states that, “…A consideration of conceptual problems which remain ill defined and unresolved in the study of regional integration depite the wealth of empirical generalizations which have been generated.” In other words, after dedicating half of his article to these so called “generalizations” they actually nothing is proved and nothing is stated that helps the conceptuals problems of regions, which is one of the main criticisms of neofunctionalism.

Neo-Neo Debate

After learning where both theories come closer, and where they differ, I came to see the reaction between Neo-liberalism versus Neo-realism and the study of international relations. Since international relations was founded as an academic discipline, it has been dominated by Realist approach. Since this debate covers the central place in this field, we can conclude that it gives the most influential knowledge for theorizing about the world in general. The debate can be regarded as strongly contributing not only to the academic international relations, but also to the foreign policy making of the leading countries in international politics. The differences between these two kinds of thinking can be found in their field of study, because they are said to study different worlds. On one side Neo-realism is concerned with studying security issues, and the other, Neo-liberalism, studies political economy and focuses on questions like cooperation, institutions, and environment.

Realist Dialogue

While most would like to think that in the future there will be some sort of international system that could control all states and entities in a balance of peace, the Realists have come to accept that this is just not a possibility. One of the key tenets of Realism that I would have to agree with is the importance of international anarchy. Though today we now have the UN to hint at rules and regulations for the states; it is more important for a state to look out for itself. Especially regarding the extreme differing cultures, economic standings, and numerous other points, it would be impossible for all states to agree on international rules for every aspect of the political and economic system.

Carr

Carr explains that there are three different spheres of political power (military, economic, and power over opinion). He states, “…That these categories are closely interdependent; and though they are theoretically separable, it is difficult in practice to imagine a country for any length of time possessing one kind of power in isolation from the others.” While Carr goes on to explain the three spheres of power, it becomes evident that while political economics and public opinion are important to political power, all three are ultimately linked to military power and the fact that war is central to international relations. Every action the state takes is usually somehow directed toward the aspect of war or prevention of war.

Carr goes on to state that, “Military power, being an essential element in the life of the state, becomes not only an instrument, but an end in itself.” Wars are no longer for the sole purpose of increasing the size of an empire by trade or territory, but are instead used as a means to prevent other countries from gaining more military power; or as Carr put it, “…there is much justification for the epigram that ‘the principal cause of war is war itself.’” Even wars that usually start as wars for security or other purposes usually end up becoming wars for the acquisition of more power.

I also agree with Carr that as soon as a nation attains some little bit of power, their appetite for power grows; it is simply human nature. This is just as Machiavelli claimed that, “Men never appear to themselves to possess securely what they have unless they acquire something further from another.” And in today’s international politics, it is apparent that in order to adequately enforce one’s foreign and even domestic politics, a certain level of military power is required. Without the brute force to back up one’s policies, nobody would have to follow such policies; which was exactly what happened with the failure of the League of Nations in the 1950s.

Hayward's "The Dialectics of World Order"

It is not surprising that there are three distinct dialectics of world order; however, I did find it interesting that not all three were given equal importance in the international relations studies of American college institutions. In Alker Hayward’s The Dialectics of World Order, one of the most important points he continually brings up is the fact that each of the three major approaches – traditional, dialectical, and behavioral science – can be found in the others. There is not a strand which is completely separate, but instead they play off of each other and critic each other in order to come up with their own approach toward international relations.
Hayward also mentioned a specific coding system that was used to decipher how many of each texts for the three different approaches were used in leading universities and colleges in America. While this adequately portrayed the extreme bias toward the behavioral science approach, I found it odd that the readings were not cross listed between the three approaches, but instead only characterized to one specific overall approach. Although I’m sure that the bias would still remain even if the readings were coded to more than one approach if it were mentioned in the reading, I still feel that most of the readings had to have talked about of stepped upon the other two approaches.
Though Hayward continually says that being open and humble to all of these different approaches would allow for adaptive development, it doesn’t seem like many are taking his advice. Although we are in America, and we believe our theories to be the best; it is still helpful to study the theories and approaches of others to learn from their mistakes, but also their benefits.