:), Reflective

IR Theory seems to fluctuate as easily and forcefully as the ocean tide. The majority of these theories are not individual, separate manifestations, but rather linked to each other in reaction and causality. Each theory claims to be the most correct and usually takes the form of an "ism." The problem with any "ism" is that they are all confined in themselves, none being a fluid observation of people and their social interactions locally or globally. What is needed most is not a creation of another "ism" that we can all ascribe to, but rather an intellectual empathy or open mindedness that would allow individuals to better ascertain the overall relationships between the almost infinite social variables in life.
A definition is not important at this juncture in time. What is important is an understanding. Techniques of understanding must be practiced and advocated, experience is the key. A definition or a more concise explanation of IR theory may be possible, but it is only important and worth explaining if it is true. Definitions and "isms" will not help the world to truly coexist beautifully. A balance of action and non-action is required in elegant international relations. This freedom is only possible when one's mind belongs to no doctrine.

Take off the rose colored glasses

"History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices"
-Bill Waterson

I find this description of history by Calvin of the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip by Bill Waterson to be most applicable to studying IR theories. It is possible to tell a truth without telling the truth. Here lies the struggle between perception and objective reality, a struggle that leaders have to confront regularly. Decisions are made without ever having all of the information. Many times, there is a 51-49 split on what should be done. Here, perception is more persuasive than objective reality. Despite the unknown, we cannot put forth 51% effort into the decision we choose; we must still put forth 110% effort even in the face of adversity. But we can act more confidently in our decisions if we have an understanding of many perceptions besides our own. Theories help us understand interests, which in turn help us to make decisions. If we take into consideration the traditional, dialectical, and behavioral approaches to IR theory and dare to be deeply uncomfortable with the opposing ideas that we read and learn, we may be more comfortable in our decisions despite the empirical unknowns. As the fifth and final guideline of Alker and Biersteker suggests, “a greater dialectical sensitivity concerning one’s own research situation, combined with humility and openness in theory development” will lead us to be mores successful actors, rather than reactors, in the international arena.

A horse is a horse, of course –of course. [Will Brehm, Week 1, Reflective]

Understanding, even just acknowledging various perspectives finds great difficulty rooting itself in modern educational practices. This essay, “The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for a future Archeologist of International Savoir Faire,” shows, in one area, International Relations, the pitfalls and narrow approaches in teaching in general. How do we define the appropriate language that encompasses all the perspectives of the given field when the language constantly changes and receives bitter dispute? (Think: the mention of epistemology and ontology in the essay.) It should not surprise us that in different countries, even in different States, knowledge of a given field changes. (Should I mention that in Kansas the debate over Intelligent Design made it into classrooms?) We must ask our self, who is the teacher, what is the current state of affairs, and what organization (or school) is supporting this teacher. Answers will vary depending on location. These answers change the direction, focus, and attention paid to various themes that fall under the field (or class) at hand. No wonder IR studies vary from logical approaches and behavioral approaches to traditional approaches.

 

Think of it this way: Being taught the History of World War II in America differs with the way it is taught in Germany or Austria. For example, many Austrian history books explain Hitler’s Anschluss as an annexation of Austria by Germany in 1938. Annexation implies a forceful take over by the Nazi’s. With this understanding, Austria became the first victim of Hitler’s regime, taking responsibility away from Austria’s willing connection to the now tainted international disapproval of the Nazi’s (one area that many perspectives agree on). However, this skewed understanding misses –or looks past –important facts. Hitler marched into Austria to cheering crowds. He gave a speech to thousands of Austria’s at the Habsburg’s winter palace in hopes for a more economically sound state. (Of course, some Austrian citizens did not wish for Hitler to enter, but they were in the minority. These dissenters, though, become popularized once the German Reich lost.) This difference in history plagues all fields of study because different countries (shall I say) value different ideas or understandings. Every area will have different takes on history –as well as all the other social sciences.

 

What should be done? Some how we need to be taught through all the different lenses. Once we see it all, we should intellectually and pragmatically determine the best version. This is what Alker and Biersteker call the cosmopolitan approach. I think that’s what we need to strive for. I know, this is idealistic, but, hey, I can dream!