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.

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.

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?

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.

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: 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?

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?

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.

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.

Wendt Article Impressions [Yoo, Week 5, Substantive]

"Anarchy is what state make of it."

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

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

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

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

"Anarchy is thick" [Yoo, Week 5, Dialogue]

I would like to take Lauren's view on anarchism and constructivism one point further. I would like to question anarchy as not being uniform, as well. Although I agree that norms exist in our world system, the world system is not uniform. We say that states recognize each other's sovereignty, which is true. But there definitely exists a hierarchy of states in the international system. China's relationship with Mongolia, for instance. Mongolia is overwhelmingly powerless next to China's new found growth and prosperity. These power-shifts can change as well; during the 1060's, North Korea was viewed as the more powerful Korea, and the survival of the South was questioned. Read this:"A few years back I asked a South Korean Minister of Finance if he took North Korean behavior into account when formulating South Korean economic policy. "No," he replied, "those guys in the North are crazy. We don't pay any attention to them." Yet even with this overwhelming economic superiority, the South still has to take into account the North when concerning security issues. Yes, anarchy is thick, but the norms between countries differ significantly according to different situations.

Thoughts on Nuclear Weapons [Yoo, Week 4, Dialogue]

Basically, I think nuclear weapons suck. I also think the chances of a nuclear war happening is slim. Somebody pointed out that you would like to believe that the states posessing nuclear weapons are responsible enough not to use them out of fear for an outright nuclear war. I believe this. Do you really think a country like North Korea is crazy enough to start shooting nuclear bombs into South Korea or Japan? I guess this isn't the best example, as Kim Jong Il is a maniac, but really. The nuclear powers who really matter in international relations, like the US and China, are so closely interwined economically that a war between them seems remote. I agree with everybody that nuclear weapons may become a major problem if rogue terrorists posessed them, but I think the chances of terrorists gaining nuclear capability are slim. Maybe I am underestimating terrorist networks, but I believe nuclear power is complicated to the point that only valid states can effectively manage them. In today's world, nuclear weapons don't appear to be anything more than simple flexes of power. Who uses a nuclear bomb nowadays anyway?

Federalism in Belgium [Yoo, Week 4, Substantive]

Apparently, calls for a breakup are growing ever louder in Belgium, according to an interesting article in the NYT.
The jist of the Nye article was that states must integrate themselves into single economic market, and then gradually become a political unit. A regional group economic group formation will lead to various types of formal and informal governmental regional organizations, shifting power from central state governments towards the regional level. Europe would be the best example of this, although not exactly.
I'm not an expert on Belgium, but it appears that Belgium as a state was created nearly out of nowhere in order to create a buffer between France and Germany. Finally, after nearly 200 years, the country is on the verge of division.

The economies of the two regions are inextricably intertwined, and separation would be a fiscal nightmare.
Then there is the issue of the national debt (90 percent of Belgium’s gross domestic product) and how to divide it equitably.
But there is also deep resentment in Flanders that its much healthier economy must subsidize the French-speaking south, where unemployment is double that of the north.

I suppose that the current economic situation will not allow Belgium to split up immediately. I find this ecnomic integration in stark contrast with the political situation in the country:

Contributing to the difficulty in forming a new government now is the fact that all 11 parties in the national Parliament are local, not national, parties. The country has eight regional or language-based parliaments.

Why didn't economic unity create a more central Belgium government?
Of course, the irony is that Belgium is all for EU integration, and the headquarters of the EU itself is located in Brussels.
I think this might serve as an example of how integrating an area into a political and economic market might fail. It seems the Belgium state found itself incapable of federalising itself effectively. Are different ethnic groups really willing to give up their determination?

Absolute Gains vs. Relative Gains [Yoo, Week 3, Dialogue]

In class, the thing I found most interesting was that neo-liberals stress absolute gains, while neo-realistics stress relative gains. I'm not really sure how to interpret these different types of "gains". Does absolute gains signify a gain - whether economic, territorial, etc. - that it makes regardless of how the another state is doing? Do states not care about where they stand in the world, as long as they are improving their own society? Meanwhile, does relative gains signify a state concerned with maintaining power in relation to other states? Which attempts to be more powerful, more economically stable, etc? If my jist is correct (and I may be absolutely wrong), I find the neo-liberal argument of absolute gains very unrealistic (That sounds ridiculous). I can't help but feel that countries are in competition to become more influential and/or powerful. If you become a world power, somebody has to lose, right? Just look at how our world politics are structured. The "8 largest economies" of the world meet in the G8 Summit (because apparently the G8 economies are the most important, even though they don't include China or India), and the UN Security Council hold powers which other members do. So which type of "gain" is more revelent in today's society?

Kay & the role of NATO [Yoo, Week 3, Substantive]

Kay's article brought up some interesting points regarding NATO's role in the war in Kosovo.

I found it particularly interesting that NATO's act of war in Kosovo violated a basic principle of inernational law as codified in the United Nations. The Charter of the UN states that only the Security Council can authorize the use of force for the kind of humanitarian campaign that NATO waged. Not only that, the members of NATO were going against even the core principles of their own institution, stating that member states must "refrain from the use of force in any manner i nconsistent with the purpose of the UN."

I think Emily makes a good point about how the NATO does not appear to have a purpose in today's world. Especially, I question the NATO's principle of "collective defense". I feel that collective defense is a rather outdated policy where the world is becoming increasingly multi-polar. As Emily, I question the purpose of NATO as an institution. However, I wonder why NATO is expanding to an even greater extent, with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. I wonder, who exactly are NATO members defending themselve against?

What is a state? [Yoo, Week 2, Dialogue]

Although I agree with Agata's assessment of Greg's definition, I think of "State" as much more complicated than simply "a political entity under a unified government within a set of distinct boundaries." I would like to point out that the boundaries seen in much of Africa and Asia today are the result of European colonization. The Great Powers divided up the land in spheres of influence without regards to traditional boundaries or ethnic groups. For example, in Afghanistan only 44% of the population belong to the dominant ethnic group. Not only that, the dominant group is scattered not only in Afghanistan, but other states as well. Countries that feature multiple ethnic groups will always be challenged in maintaining order, especially with the onslaught of nationalism. I believe a state to be only valid and legitimate only if the state has somehow surpressed, assimilated, or encompassed everybody within the border. Therefore, I feel the definition of "state" is much more complicated than what we perceive it to be.

Carr Article [Yoo, Week 2, Substantive]

After reading Carr's article, I did some googling about the League of Nations. Specifically, I wanted to know more about the League because of Carr's suggestion that it failed because of power politics. I wanted to give myself a reminder of the w's of the League, and the content of the time period. A small detail I found intriguing was that the members of the League were unable to agree on even a symbol or flag for the institution. What a way to illegitimate a "global" institution! I thought this detail neatly packaged exactly what Carr was suggesting throughout his article; Power politics play a dominant role in international relations. States primarily focus on gaining, or at least preventing the loss, of their power.
Going off tangent, but for some reason I am reminded of the LEFT BEHIND book series by evangelical writers Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. In case you haven't heard of them, they are a series of books about the Tribulation. Millions and millions of people vanish because of the Rapture, and the people remaining on Earth are left asking themselves what the hell happened. In the midst of this, a world government is formed. The "Global Community" becomes the prime center of power, and surprisingly the people of the world accept it, hoping for peace. Of course, not everybody is. World War III occurs because the American president finds it unacceptable to hand over a majority chunk of arms to the GC government. The war ends with a GC victory. The GC becomes a legitimate government, with the arms, soldiers, and funds to actually carry out what it wishes to do. A single world religion is formed, and the world is united under a single leader, the Antichrist at that.
After reading Carr's article, I think a world government like the GC is definitely impossible without a huge change in how our world is constructed. The dramatic events in the LEFT BEHIND series could only occur because of such a thing as the Rapture. In order for there to be consensus between all states, each state must give up some of its power. So will there ever be a world government? I guess only a Rapture can answer that question.

Alker Article Impressions. [Yoo, Week 1, Substantive & Dialogue]

Alker and Biersteker take a rather post-modern stance when it comes to studying IR theories. In the paper, the authors propose that there is no single IR research theory that has gained world-wide acceptance and hegemony.
Essentially, the world is a disorderly place, especially due to the "century of total war" in the 20th century. IR theories attempt to make sense of this disorder. Yet, these theories widely vary from national setting to setting. For example, in the United States IR debates have focused on traditional vs. behavior approaches, while dialectical approaches dominated the Soviet Union.
In class, we learned about how every day practices and IR theory are interconnected. I interpreted the lecture as being that every day practices can have a great impact on IR policies because the small things people do and feel mold their beliefs. It seems only natural that people's beliefs shape their view of the world, and exert influences on relationships between different states. Also, 'every day practices' are more than simply about 'small things'. I view every day practices as emcompassing a wide variety of human characteristics, as whether one is male or female, where one lives, whether one attends church or temple or not at all, etc. Cultural differences can have a huge impact on IR policy. I agree with Alker and Biersteker in that we need to take into account these variables in order to have a better understanding of IR policies internationally. We cannot assume our ideals are that of others, and that the world state system evolved into its current state due American-centric theories.
However, I agree with Dave that Marxism and communism take a less active role in world politics than it did in the past. Today's world is composed of centralized states with defined borders. There are only about a 190 'states' around the world, and diplomacy is handled between states and not 'nations'. With this in mind, I think the current debates between traditional and behavioral science approaches are more useful. There are still states that are stuck in the Soviet Union model, such as that of North Korea. I do not support ignoring these states, but they generally take a miniscule part in world politics. They are based on failed models of world order. Why focus on an outdated system?
In class, we learned about the evolution of how the modern state system became to be. Especially, the belief that modern states can more effectively deal with the world environment really appealed to me. I feel that if states adapted to become the most efficient system, than IR theories have to adapt to the times as well. As Dave pointed out, globalization is the standard in our state-centric world. Which theories are best at explaining the world? Not radical/Marxist dialectical approaches, I think.