i like Nandy.

Ashis Nandy's article "The Beautiful, Expanding Future of Poverty: Popular Economics as a Psychological Defense" was very interesting. When I read it, I found myself agreeing with everything that was said. Two very opposing points were made in the article, yet both seemed to make sense. The first point was that "poverty can be eliminated through development because there seems to be an iron law of democratic politics in large, multi-ethnic, diverse societies." The second very opposing point was, "that poverty cannot be eliminated because it is in many countries an ever-expanding concept and because true or absolute poverty, which I have called destitution, is usually a small part of it." What I particularly enjoyed about the article, and sincerely respect is that with each point Nandy made, there were multiple questions. A biased lens (they are all really biased when it comes down) was acknowledged. In the middle of the article, Nandy discusses the definition of the poverty line and the general assumptions of what is considered poor versus prosperous. This reminded me of something I read a long time ago (and I can't even quote you from where so how valid does it make this... ?? but i really did read this..probably in some foreign affairs article that my mother forced down my throat..). Anyhow, what I read was that the definition of the poverty line is in fact very skewed and rarely represents things 'fairly' (I know, the next question is, who defines what 'fair' is...but bare with me). So a more accurate way to measure the 'success' or 'impoverishment' of an area or country was to measure the time and effort involved in doing comparable work. For example, the time it took one farmer in one area to farm a pound of rice with that of another farmer (in a similar climate) and how look it took him/her to produce a pound of rice. Granted there are many flaws with this, including the fact that there is no one product you can use to compare everywhere, but I do remember this taking into account if an area was in political turmoil at a given time because then certain products would not be available to that farmer (or they wouldn't be able to market or sell their product..), etc. This was not clearly cut in any regard, but I always remembered it because it made so much sense. When I applied to colleges, my counselor explained that schools would expect more from me (a private school student) because things had supposedly been handed to me (access to libraries, good lunch, laboratories, enough text books in class, etc). If this is how the world works in a small (socially constructed system) as college applications, the it should seem overtly obvious that you cannot make any one overarching generalization for the world (including defining the poverty line). Anyhow, I could keep going with the various things that were said in this article that I understood (!!! FINALLY) and agreed with even though questions were constantly asked of each statement made, but I'll spare you. Pretty much it made me happy to read that SOMEONE acknowledges that there are sooo many perspectives to all of this stuff that it's almost ridiculous to call any of it theory- its not like in spanish where there are 30 verbs that are exceptions to the rule, there are exceptions to every single 'rule'/theory/statement made, which has frustrated me a lot.

How to measure success?

"In assessing proportionality with regard to the ends of an interventionist power we have to consider as many factors as possible. A mere body count, while being a key part of any assessment is insufficient. Indeed, according to many theories of justice it is immoral to proceed by counting lives lost and saved".

This post is in connection with Will's post and with this excerpt from Holliday's piece "When is a cause just?"

When I read this, two ideas came to mind. First, it is extremely difficult, could go without saying, to assess the impact of any type of program, event, or action. Let's get away from what Holliday is talking about in another type of example. There are many impact assessments that are done when looking at poverty alleviation programs. What types of things do these assessments look at? Well, they look at economic, social, and political indicators to determine progress in communities and also other indicators for a more macro-level analysis. But to look at just one indicator would be foolish and would not do justice for the program or could even make the program look more effective than it actually is.

Well this is not limited to just a development program; this can also be applied to a conflict or war. Looking at a variety of factors and indicators is necessary in assessing progress, in determining strategy and policy, and in assessing impact (this would be the second idea that came to my mind). To look at just one factor, such as body counts, could embolden a conflict or make it seem less successful than it actually was. Today, however, it seems politically viable to focus on body counts because it is what touches people emotionally. It is what draws support or criticism from the public. I am not trying to downplay those who have given their lives for their country because I am grateful and gracious for all the young men and women that have given the ultimate sacrifice to serve our country and for those who continue to serve; however, basing political decisions on just body counts is inaccurate and IMMORAL as claimed by Holliday.

Understanding the costs and benefits is extremely important when dealing with war because of danger, seriousness, and gross atrocities that result from war. Even today with the War on Terror body counts are used and at the same time criticized for being used as assessing progress in the War. There are obviously many other factors that should be examined when determining progress, but these indicators are much more difficult to analyze and perhaps unattractive to the public.

How I would interpret the immorality of only looking at body counts is the fact that there are a complex set of issues surrounding war which are immense. Furthermore, the implications are far-reaching and require intense scrutiny. While the sacrifice of soldiers and the tragedy of civilians losing their lives in war is extremely significant, tragic, and worth looking out, there are also other implications that need to be taken into account in order to make a wise decision in policy and in strategy. If other factors aren't taken into account than a grave mistake could be made which could end up hurting those going into war and those being attacked (including the innocents). War has an impact that is in the long-term and only looking at one important factor would be unethical for future generations, not just those directly impacted by the conflict.

When I have talked with others about the issue of just looking at body counts especially concerning the war in Iraq, many have said that it is completely irrational. However, noting that it is immoral is extremely significant. I would be interested to see why other people would think it is immoral. Any thoughts?

Just Causes [Will Brehm, Week 9, Substantive]

In assessing an unjust cause, Holliday proposes three markers: 1) use only the information available at the time of the decision (to go to war) to determine unjustness (no hindsight!); 2) ask whether the action solved the problem; 3) use many factors, not just body count, to determine the end result. Holliday’s markers have great logical sense that cut across deep ideological and political lines for evaluating solutions to unjust causes.

In American media today evaluating the Iraq War as a just cause repeatedly produces attack from politicians, lobbyists, and individual citizens. These debates hinder our Nations ability to make future just decisions.

I suggest taking Holliday’s markers a step further. Using the three markers eliminates any attempt to lampoon decision makers because it limits the evaluation to a few factors. However, we can, and should learn from past decisions to help tweak and redefine our decision making process in the future. We should be able to reveal sources of crucial information that may have been unnoticed in the lead up to the decision to solve an unjust action. The next time a decision is upon Washington, it will undoubtedly broaden its scope of information. Strategies for solving the problem (war plans, economic sanctions, etc.) can be retrospectively assessed to alter future plans. What worked and what didn’t work shouldn’t be left to historians. Current policy and decision makers need to understand past decisions to learn from them. The factors to determine the end result, which go unnamed in Holliday’s essay, could be expanded and explained as more decisions are made. Learning from our past decisions—creating stricter criteria for assessing future unjust causes—will create a more just world. Without our ability to learn, we will continue making unjust decisions to what we perceived as an unjust cause.

Gender Reaction

I've been leaving class after the presentations, very unsettled. After Thursday's presentation on feminism, I wasn't sure where I, myself, stood on the topic. I've always considered myself a liberal feminist. I grew up thinking that women could do everything that men could and that anyone who questioned that or did not support that was pretty much a stupid, awful human being. I remember boys talking about the WNBA in middle school (which I believe had started only a few years before, around 1992?) and how it was the most ridiculous concept they had ever heard of. I have to be honest when I say, throughout high school, I was never, ever friends with those that group of boys just because of that.
But more recently, I have yet to figure out where exactly woman stand in something as simple as the work force. I agree that if a woman does the same job as a man, she should be paid equally. But how are women supposed to reproduce and maintain a job with 100% equal standing? I know many women work up until they give birth, and many do not take off long for maternity leave. But with something so consuming going on with your body, do you still operate at the same level as before pregnancy? Something so clearly biological should be taken into account in life, but I wonder if it's almost anti-feminist to look at pregnancy as a negative aspect of being a woman. Shouldn't you celebrate your body and its function?
When the group presenting discussed condy and h. clinton's masculine looking haircuts I was unhappy. Why were they insisting that short hair is masculine? What makes it masculine. What if I think its very feminine? A good friend of mine shaved her head for a play she was in and she was just as stunning and FEMININE as when her hair was 10 inches long. I feel like a lot of the issues we address, we do not acknowledge our own biased lenses when we address them. I can think of a lot of masculine looking girls that have long hair... but that's neither here nor there.
The presentation also addressed women in the army and the fact that if a woman was captured in battle, she could be raped. Did we forget that men can and are raped too? It happens... So why arn't they afraid of that???
I'm not sure what women expect of society, when we are simply not men. I think those differences should be celebrated. I truly believe there is space for women to rise to power, just that many do not seek it. I see in my blog and in my own thoughts that I really could defend both sides of this- woman need more power, women need to relax and are in good standing as is. But when it comes down to it. Male or female, I think life is just about choices.. Men have to choose if they want to be around the family or around the office, why shouldn't women have to do the same..

CynthiaEnloe

The conclusion to the Cynthia Enloe book Bananas, Beaches and Bases was not very firm in any stance any direction. The final sentence said the most, "Every time a woman explains how her government is trying to control her fears, her hopes and her labor such a theory is being made." From what I understood, the conclusion did not dig very deeply in making any clear point. Maybe I clearly missed something here, but I don't think so. Anyhow, the thing I took away from the article was that everything in politics is palindrome- that meaning that the little things effect the big and that the big effect the little. Its all a big two way street. Which is fine, and I personally think makes a lot of sense, but then in the very final sentence that I awkwardly threw out in the second sentence of this blog- that doesn't fit. That just says that women feel the government attempting to control their lives, a top down approach. The sentence before (and there isn't one after) does not give women the power to say that we can effect governmental policy or whatever else. I know she says we can in various small points, but her big point is not that which upset me a bit. I know she considers herself (as do others) a big feminist in her views, but I think it's almost anti-feminist of her to not capitalize on the power that women do have. It's one thing to say they deserve more, but other to make women out to be these inflicted, inferior things... I think her version of feminism is too watered down for me.

Women in Politics, Reflective

After learning about feminism's perspective in IR I have come to the conclusion that, for the most part, much of what women think and feel has been ignored to certain degrees that have proven to marginalize the overall effectiveness of governments. Over half the world's population is comprised of women and to have much of their views not represented in government is very undemocratic and or short sighted. I believe everything works better in balance and to have little female representation and opinion in government is very bad. We then create a system of communication and understanding based on male dominated views. This makes it as though females have to overcompensate for their "nature" and prove they are tougher than many males in government. This just leads to making everything worse because instead of having a compliment we just get more extreme.
Now, I am not sure on the correct statistics, I think Meredith would know, but I think that women are trusted over men concerning receiving micro loans because they are proven to be more responsible. This is indicative of real life in many cases. I think that there are differences between men and women and that these differences need to be understood and appreciated through cooperative dialogue and action. When this is effectively practiced and men start to care about women and their voice concerning our world then more progressive change will occur.

Here's a thought....

So I had this long conversation with a close friend this past week about the different "roles" men and women have. He argued that women have an innate nurturing quality to them that makes them better at certain roles than men which cannot be debated. For instance, he would argue the mother should be the primary caretaker of a child when he/she is first born. This made me start to think about the discussions we've been having in these posts and in class.

What do we all think about the argument that women and men are innately built with certain qualities that make men and women better/worse at certain positions? Is this truly a biological difference? Or, are these socially constructed qualities that have put women at a disadvantage in the workplace and in the public sphere? And how can we distinguish between innate qualities and social constructed identities if they seem so natural because perhaps we have been brought up with this type of knowledge so it seems biological? I'm honestly not sure. I do think that women tend to have a nurturing quality to them, in some cases, more than men, but I'm not sure if this is because of the way we identify certain qualities with women or because these qualities women innately possess?

Feminists would argue that is preposterous that women should be taking care of the children at home and be housewives, but this is not my question. Rather, I am wondering if this nurturing quality of women is socially constructed or biological. I've heard many times that women should be the ones taking care of a child right after the child is born because of the attachment that the baby has with the mother while in utero.

The reason I think this pertains to IR is that if this nurturing quality is innate for women, than this could be partly the reason why femininity is seen as less powerful and less likely for a woman to be a powerful political opinion. Why? Well probably because many see hard politics as the most important and cannot seem to associate a nurturing mother with someone who could effectively deal with hard politics. So perhaps the conversation should be why someone who has qualities that are "feminine" are seen as anti-political? Does that mean that mothers cannot be effective political leaders? So, should we should be looking at why certain qualities cannot be associated with politics?

This may have been a rant, but I guess, I am trying to explore the issues of characteristics of women, whether or not they are innate or socially constructed. If they are innate, then we should be asking ourselves why these innate characteristics cannot be employed in the public sphere. If they are socially constructed, how did it come to be this way and has this been a purposeful construction to suppress women?

Moving about in negligee [Will Brehm, Week 8, Reflective]

Listening to the class discuss the idea of gender issues made me understand the underlying problem. We are critically challenging our systems of thinking inside the system itself. This approach blinds our perceptions and forces us to attack the feminist lens. Let me break this down through an example.

The group suggested feminine jobs such as nursing or preschool/kindergarten teaching. The thinking goes: either women are housewives, which many decide to do, or enter the workforce in a “powerless” job. (Yes, Gabe pointed correctly that many of these jobs are utterly powerful, but this misses the point. These jobs are powerless because men, in powerful positions, have deemed them so. It is the idea of power that helps construct out understanding of gender. Feminine jobs do not influence political or international decisions. If those in power (men) think of these jobs as powerful, would not the funding for these jobs (teaching, nursing, etc.) increase? Alternatively, put a man in these positions and see what stereotypes come out. How do we read a male nurse or a male kindergarten teacher? As Newsweek pointed out a few weeks ago, either those men who choose to enter preschool/kindergarten teaching are seen as pedophiles or homosexuals. We continue to reinforce the femininity of some jobs and the masculinity of others.) Those women who want power must loose their femininity and acquire masculine traits. Thus, we have separated and defined gender roles in very specific terms. She either accepts the patriarchy and embraces femininity (becoming powerless) or steps outside of patriarchy and looses all feminine qualities (becoming powerful). We leave zero other spaces. It is this dichotomy that we are stuck in. And we discuss feminist theory inside this dichotomy, which produce attacks (“but some women want to be housewives”) or find specific examples (“look at the president from Ireland”) as a way of dismissing the theory. Living inside this dichotomy leaves us seeing short term, not long term. If we step outside the system and view what the heck is going on inside, we will see some serious trends. What we will discover, if we can escape the conventional thinking, is that we have never created a lasting, genuine space for powerful feminine women. We continuously want to stick gender roles inside the housewife/masculine women binary.

Food for thought: deconstruct the term “housewife.” Not so great of a term, is it? Wanting to be a “housewife” really shows how we live inside this system and struggle to escape.

More food for thought: William Carlos Williams wrote an amazing poem titled “The Young Housewife.” It follows below.

“The Young Housewife” by William C. Williams
At ten AM the young housewife
moves about in negligee behind
the wooden walls of her husband's house.
I pass solitary in my car.

Then again she comes to the curb
to call the ice-man, fish-man, and stands
shy, uncorseted, tucking in
stray ends of hair, and I compare her
to a fallen leaf.

The noiseless wheels of my car
rush with a crackling sound over
dried leaves as I bow and pass smiling.

Feminism of Cynthia Enloe

From reading the articles of Cynthia Enloe, I concluded that she made some very valid points pertaining for feminism and its advancement. I believe that a significant number of feminists are power hungry, placing blame for many problems on that of masculinity and seeking increased power in return. Enloe seemed to not be distracted by power and focused on problems at hand and how to sovle them. I thought one of her better point was made when discussing violence against women. She makes the point that it is a problem and it is trying to be solved, but without analyzing global trade in pornographic video, companies that offer sex tours and mail order brides across national borders, any effort will provide minimal results. Much can be learned from her proposals. These were among the better gender articles that I have read.

International Feminism, Substantive

In this class we have focused on issues of perspective, mainly a lack there of in the field of IR. The dominance of the masculine perspective in IR has become increasingly evident over the years and because of this more is being done to address the disparities between men and women around the world. This is extremely general and progress is happening at various speeds and qualities, however, despite this social 'awakening' of sorts, much is still left to be done. To consider the feminist view is critical in our analysis of IR and how we should modify relations between and within peoples. There are different definitions for what feminism is and means because it is a personal perspective, so I look at it in terms of there being an obvious inequality between the sexes and that more should be done to appreciate women and cultivate their success through social reforms. The human race should not make decisions based on privileged ethnicities, classes, or sexes and a better dialogue between them is necessary for understanding and cooperation. There are social problems and that is mainly why IR exists. We need to learn how to change our perspectives in order to change our world.

Feminist Perspectives

"Always ask the question: under what condition do state officials invest state resources in the manipulation of masculinity and feminity...so few people, until recently, have asked these questions...very naive understanding of how state power works and how interstate relations work".

After reading Enloe's interview, I realized that I haven't asked these types of questions, because either they aren't explored in the media and IR literature, or they aren't present. This whole question of where are the women is interesting. However, this whole focus on women in gendered critiques can also be dangerous. Of course there may be policies or societal relations that suppress women's roles in politics or that develop a certain ideology that perpetuate the fact that women may stay in a certain role. On the other hand, there are times when gendered critiques turn into a very strong focus on women that may actually hurt them in the end.

I have been working on my thesis on microfinance which is when small loans are given to the poor in the Third World for microenterprises, consumption, education loans, etc. Many times these loans focus on women, and case studies have shown that there are worse off than before. This whole movement to provide loans for women, because they were oppressed and without any power in their households or communities, has actually displaced a new burden of double the work on women. They still are expected to do the domestic work and the new microenterprises that the microloans fund. So this focus on dealing with the gender and intrasocietal relations can have a negative impact on women. I'm not sure what this mean for feminist perspectives, but it makes me wonder whether focusing completely on women for critiques of certain societal forces could put women at a further disadvantaged position if these critiques lead to policies and programs like microfinance. (FYI: I'm not trying to say that microfinance doesn't help some women, but that it CAN if there is a sole focus on women in development).

Cynthia Enloe

I enjoyed reading the conclusion as well as the interview with Cynthia Enloe. I attended an all girls school for middle and high school. Obviously, we were all taught to believe that woman were just as good or better than men and that we could do anything we wanted. What differs in my instruction from that of the feminism is that my school was Catholic, so not everything was played on an equal playing field. I don’t balk at feminist statements, but to me they seem a little bold. From the little I was taught about feminist movement, Enloe seems to be like a “diet feminist,” tastes kinda like the real thing bit there is something missing. She does not remind me of the bra burners of the early movements. Her focus on how American culture and masculine influence in international organizations has hindered woman is completely feministic, but she does not seem as gun-ho about it as I imagine feminist woman to be. She argues the prevalence of sexism, but she is not as forth right in the need for equality everywhere. I was particularly fascinated by her apparent belief that men are not the only instigators of aggression, violence is not fundamentally masculine. I would have expected her defend females and argue that if woman ran the world than there wouldn’t be any war. My education has biased my views on feminism. I always believed that feminists were all for female supremacy. Enloe kind of surprised me.

Mystique-ing the Feminine [Will Brehm, Week 8, Substantive]

I love using the feminist analytical lens. A lens, I believe, that always needs to be own. Just as Meredith pointed out, it’s a lens that usually stays covered and unused by many IR thinkers. Feminism to me is equality between the genders. Who wouldn’t support that? The real problem, though, stems from the constructed understanding we have between the genders. Understanding our own construction sometimes challenges our belief system. Suggesting that men have treated women poorly often results in attacks on the messenger (a logical fallacy). People do not like to think they live inside a system that supports the silencing of women—that we all (both men and women) may be part of the problem through our perpetual silence.

Look: specific ideas of “femininity” and “masculinity” abound in American culture. One way to analyze gender roles is to take a community and see trends within the genders. Take Lehigh. Imagine walking around Lehigh for the first time. Would you see a diversity of clothing? Nope. Men, consciously or unconsciously, conform to a similar style of clothing. Women do too. We wear similar clothes either implicitly or explicitly, but, in essence, we have created a specific image of what a “woman” and a “man” look like. Is this a wrong thing? Maybe not. But if we construct gender roles down to our clothing, imagine what we do in other aspects of our lives. Think parties: who has been to a "CEOs and Office Hoes" party? In this context, men hold positions of power (CEOs) while women are relegated to (literally) sexual workers. A woman becomes defined through sexual promiscuity. Yes, it's only a party, but these parties cut deep to the underlying problem. (A more detailed analysis of Lehigh’s gender issues would take more space and time available for this post.)

If you want to see gender issues in media, look no further than an Alfred Hitchcock film. [OK, lets be real here: just turn on FOXNEWS to see its understanding of what a female host looks like. Hint: they’re all blond.] He plays with the ideas of femininity and masculinity in most of his films, often challenging our conventional constructions. (He has been known to be rather nihilistic, not leaving any space for the “true”—both sexual and knowledgeable—women to occupy.) Gender roles are real; feminism uncovers these roles and questions their validity.

The interesting point, which I usually miss when considering gender roles, from Enloe’s interview is that different cultures and nations construct unique gender roles specific to local events, attitudes, morals, histories. But before analyzing feminism on the international level, I think a firm understand on a more tangible level needs to exist.

During the presentation given by the post-colonial group, an example was used a few times that, after considering for some time, I think I disagree with. The example used was that if one person lends another person money, the person who lent the money is in the power-play position. I believe this only applies until the money has actually been lent. When the person with money, is negotiating the lending conditions, then they have the money, but after the money has changed hands, I believe the person who received the money is in a significantly more powerful position. It is up to them to pay it back or not. They can wage the repercussions of not paying it back with those of paying it back and make the final call. There is nothing that guarantees that whoever lent the money will get it back. Money being lent on ‘good faith’ is definitely money thrown away.
I also listened to the post-colonial group discuss how all third world countries want to modernize and how it is a constant struggle in the culture in terms of how to maintain their own persona and identity and still keep up with the rest of the world. I think that’s also a huge rash generalitzation because I don’t think that ALL people in ALL third world countries are dying for computers and IPods. In fact, through my travels I’ve met a lot that are not interested in this. But that’s neither here nor there, just some points I wanted to hit on.

We need a new Language. [Will Brehm, Week 7, Reflective]

The Chakrabarty article brought up a good point about our (Western) education system. He describes a “Europeanization” of history: that we view the world through great power politics, balancing, Christianity, the battle for sovereignty, free market economies, etc. These terms then penetrate our thinking when trying to understand any other history/identity outside of Europe, be it African, Latin American, Asian, etc.

This idea lingered in my mind for a few days. I haven’t fully developed this, but here we go…

Have we been Europeanized to see the world in a certain way? The first approach to answer this question is to look at our education since it constructs our realities. Take Lehigh as the example: Until recently, a core requirement for graduating with an IR degree was IR-56—European history. The IR department saw the history of Europe as a core component of an education in IR. (Another core component was Eco. 1—suggesting a relationship to the free market/capitalism that prevails in our realities.) Think about this for a second. To study IR at Lehigh we need to understand Europe first. That’s definitely Europeanization of education in my book. Even scarier, the Europeanization of education starts from the core of a system.

What about this required theory course, IR105? Do we see a Europeanization of our understanding with Theory? I would argue we do. Starting a theory course with Realism, for arguments sake, centers our attention in Europe. We understand realism in terms of balancing, power, and military—all easily portrayed in Europe. (This isn’t to say that balancing, power and military have not dominated other nations relations; rather, exclusively focusing on Europe favors a particular region/ideology of the world.)  Once we understand the European theories then—and only then—do we move to theories outside (or conflicting with?) Europe. It is these theories we fight with most often because they challenge our understandings of theory. Embracing the European view, though, reveals that Postcolonial thinking really is not a theory in relation to Realism or Liberalism (an explanation why we have trouble with non-normative theories?).  Post colonialism cannot predict the future and cannot explain a path to follow to the ideal utopia of dialog and difference it so proudly champions. A “European” understanding of theory does not do justice to the thinking of post colonialism. In effect, being stuck in a European reality plagues understanding of alternative approaches because we lack an adequate vocabulary. (Could this be why Mupiddi makes so many words up?)

As a famous Austrian author said in “Youth in an Austrian Town: “No new world without a new language.” 

Post Colonialism Continued, Reflective

After presenting to the Class many of the main aspects of Colonialism I realized that there was an important point overlooked. It is, however, overlooked by many Post-Colonialists and that is the whole origin of the propagation of colonialism and its effects on society. If the West is the true instigator of most colonial relationships than it would seem to be correct to think that the firsts "slaves" to colonialism are its citizens. A country's identity is constantly being reproduced through social interactions domestically and internationally and for certain international relations to occur they must first be accepted to some degree domestically. We spread liberal economics as well as destroying terror because these ideas are supported and practiced at home. We are accused of marginalizing other people's freedoms and identities. Would it be a stretch to think that we can do this because we have already done it to ourselves. I think many people in this country are not free in many respects and that we a pushed in a certain social direction in life. Colonialism should first be addressed at home because that is the source of most of our problems. We need to look in the mirror and face the facts.

Looking through a Different Lens....

Today's class reminded me of all the anthropology classes I have taken in the past few years. Anthropology is about realizing that people look at people, situations, and events through a different lens for a variety of reasons. Today when we talked about the fact that looking at a situation from our point of view (the US) versus the rest of the world, results in conflicting viewpoints at times. Researching these types of different viewpoints is so interesting to me and it allows you to look at foreign policy differently when taking into account all these "lenses" so to speak of the many perspectives people have. Then the question becomes, though, how can we ever even speak objectively? Is there objectivity or only subjectivity in the minds of postcolonialists? If we are constantly looking at situations through our "own lens" so to speak, then is anything ever really objective? And if not, what does that mean for the field of IR?

Just some thoughts I had today...I would love to hear what other people think about this concept of objectivity versus subjectivity in postcolonialism.

Postcolonialism

I also feel that postcolonialism has a misplaced focus on national identity. Their imperative goal of establishing a national identity seems like it is being wrongly prioritized. Granted it is accepted that colonial rule over indiginous peoples symbolized a distorted view of morals held by the great powers, it is also excepted that colonial powers saw it as their duty to assistance in the advancement of their colonial societies. The colonial powers sought to assist in the development of their civilization and move away from past traditional trends of survival as the number one priority. In conjunction, the issue of national identity also posses problems for me. Compared to the history of indiginous people around the world, colonial rule represented a fraction of that time. Additionally, issues over national identity are irrelevant. Example 1 being the United States. It is impossible to describe the national identity of America. It consists of various types of religions, races and ethnicities, yet America continues to thrive and prosper. Postcolonialists need to focus on the goal of establishing stability, security and development. Most people want this and can accomplish this by agreeing to set aside differences and collaborate for the common good of its people. Living in the past will get you no where.

Neoimperialism

In Muppidi’s article “Colonial and Postcolonial Global Governance” he discussed an editorial writer Mallaby (his first name was cut off in all of my copies…) who argued for a “neoimperialism.” From what I understand, Mallaby proposes that a new age of imperialism would solve the world order and the United States should lead the way. For some reason this stance caught my eye. Mallaby argues that third world countries that are “disorderly,” “failed,” and “poor” would benefit from the guidance of a rich nation that would basically take it under its wing and re-structure the country. His theory ignores the ethical implications of colonization, but it is an interesting thought. Would countries like Nigeria benefit if a country like France went in and re-established order? Its argued that the United States is already doing that Afghanistan and Iraq….and well that’s not going so well…but the United States isn’t trying to establish its rule there (although you could kinda argue that it has, that was really not its original intent.) Would it make more sense and make the world a safer place if we just reverted time, erased failed states, and placed them under a dominant first world nation? It intrigues me as an idea, and I almost think it would be worth the consideration. These third world countries aren’t doing it on their own, so maybe re-colonization is what they need to straighten things out.

Muppidi, Substantive

Muppidi talks about the institutionalization of U.S. power and how it creates a hegemonic relationship with our international contacts. I agree with Muppidi in his assertion and that the rhetoric of world changing and construction is quite unilateral. No one else is really asking ask to change them and for us to implement "democratic" institutions in other countries without there true consent is quite hypocritical. I believe that this approach to our foreign policy is directly responsible for our latest international blunders and will continue to be a bane to international communication until enough damage has been done to convince our political leaders to change. Muppidi seems to point out that the U.S.'s position in the world is unique in that it assumes a role of the leader. Personally, I like to think of our self-appointment of the world's democratic and economic reformer kind of like our claims to World Series Champion or the even more comical World Football Champion. haha as if we play anybody else other than ourselves. And Canada's participation in baseball doesn't justify that claim!!!! And don't get me started on our local airport's claim to being "International." Canada doesn't count! Anyway...
I share Muppidi's point that self-appointing doesn't carry a lot of respect, especially when you try to back it up through force. Powers always shift and when one has a colonial relationship to much of the rest of the world the shift is often not pretty. Let's take a look at History and learn a lesson from the past, so we don't make the same, obvious mistakes.

Institutionalization of US Power

Muppidi's piece talks about the institutionalization of US power providing the example of the United States' invasion of Iraq, with the administration arguing that nation-states are either "with us or against us". This "institutionalization of US power" is a strong and important idea to point out in international politics, and can be traced throughout the years of US domination of world politics.

For instance, the US's role in Latin America is an example of this idea. With the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas that the US has pushed in the Western Hemisphere has divided the region into people either for or against the United States. Because of the failure to pursue this agreement for all countries in Latin America; thus, the US has pursued bilateral agreements, but even with these, if countries reject the agreement, they are anti-US. Ecuador did not want to pursue an agreement with the United States because Rafael Correa felt that the agreement would hurt the Ecuadorian farmers and small producers. Of course Correa is aligned with Venezuela's Chavez, but because Ecuador rejected the agreement, it is because he is against the United States, when this may not be the case, it may be more complex. This is an example of the institutionalization of US power in trade agreements with Latin America.

Struggling to Understand [Will Brehm, Week 7, Substantive]

The Chakrabarty article argues a thesis that cuts deep into Western thinking generally, American specifically: the “Europanization” of history hinders our ability to truly understand other social imaginaries—that realities other than our own actually exist. Since these “transition narrative[s]” for the Third World are defined by “development, modernization, [and] capitalism” in hopes of achieving our standard of modernity, it becomes unbelievably difficult for Westerners (Americans) to understand a problem lives precisely in the narrative alone, the root of the problem. Constructing narratives define our reality; when these realities are proven wrong, we do not want to accept we perceived wrongly. It is like the Tooth Fairy narrative many parents in America create while children loose teeth: completely fictional but totally accepted. More importantly, sometimes the realization of an imagined Tooth Fairy shocks young children; no one likes giving up ones innocence, constructed reality. The problem of creating “European” history and then pushing it around the world reinforces our narrative of the Third World, our belief systems, and the superiority of our system of governance. Additionally, this thinking creeps into the realities of the countries in question. Being told this narrative may be false will shock many into denial; many will resort back to the narrative because it is easy and well known. The question becomes how does a culture change its narrative to incorporate a move global view? 

Absolute Gains are for Losers

So....my team lost last Thursday, but I stand by what I said in class. It's all about the RELATIVE GAINS...as long as I understand what is going on and my team didn't finish last then we still WIN.


That is all.

Keeping Perspective, Reflective

I believe, that out of all the ism's we have studied so far in this class, Constructivism serves to be the most relevant. We all know the world is constantly in flux and no one theory will answer everything. Constructivism, however, differentiates itself from the rest through its relevance to social evolution and uniqueness. It does not try to force laws onto our social reality through a top down observational process, rather it sees basic relationships and builds upon them from bottom to top.

In my group discussions this week we all came to agreement on this and believed that Constructivism is a great tool for understanding what is going on in society and IR, but that prognostication is still difficult because its laws do not claim to dictate human behavior. I believe that commonalities can be perceived and that educated predictions can be made none the less. I understand it is a different way of managing life and society, but I believe, in the end it is a better method. It lends itself to quicker adaptation due to necessity for it. Without it, Constructivism could not be viable.

It also requires a great amount of mutual cooperation and understanding between all peoples, internationally and domestically. An understanding of perspectives and comprehension of the relativity of truth is essential. A new discourse must be created for this endeavor to be successful, wasteful definitions and concepts will have to be abandoned. This is possible because it is a social necessity, it will happen because eventually we will have no other choice, but to be more reasonable. It is time to stop making social decisions on short term interests and start acting and listening to those who look beyond themselves.

Self/Other in everyday practice [Will Brehm, Week 6, Reflective]

If constructivists define the world at large through identities (The Self/Other concept), then it becomes important to see if this works in everyday life (IR in everyday practice).

I’m currently involved in a new social justice peer education group on campus named Kaleidoscope. One topic we facilitate conversations on is privilege –the root cause of many of the injustices that happen unconsciously today. Privilege reinforces the Self/Other concepts constructivists abide by. If one group is privileged in one respect, than the Other lacks that privilege; it is a simple binary system that is created and reinforced. (Think: Male = strong, conscious, law, Oedipal, symbolic; while Female = weak, unconscious, pre-linguistic, pre-Oedipal, imaginary. A binary system I believe is false yet permeates through American society.) This does not mean, necessarily, that the Other should aim to achieve the Self’s level of privilege, or even that the Self recognizes that privilege. However, this separation into a dichotomous binary –The Self is privileged, the Other is not –creates a unique way of thinking, usually unconscious, in that everything must fall neatly into one of the two categories. For example, white male privilege abounds in the American society. Can a white male (or female) walk into a drug store and know that he (or she) can buy a band-aid that matches his (or her) skin color? One need not look to far into the past to see this repeated: in the late 80s and early 90s, Crayola carried a “Flesh” color crayon. “Flesh,” of course” was white (with a hint of pink). Now look at the highest paid CEOs in America: a pattern quickly emerges of all white men. Some define success through paycheck; therefore, implicitly some strive to become the top CEOs –a white male. Conscious or not, we live and enforce a society that gives white males the title of Self and everyone else the label of Other.

White male privilege is everywhere in our society. How does this work within the Self/Other debate? Well, it works on different levels. In American society, the Self is the White male and the Other are females and non-whites. The Self understands their prestige in terms of the Other. (I have privilege because I’m not female and not non-white.) Translate this to the world: the Self is the North, dominated by white men, while the Other is the South, men usually of darker skin. I don’t want to go into how the North treats the South, but it shouldn’t be of surprise to know that it is not good.

So, if one way of making American society more just is to reveal the hidden privilege implicit for white males, then one way of making the world more just is to reveal the privilege Northern nations have. This, in effect, will change the way we understand the Self/Other. I define myself differently now that I understand the Other more clearly. To understand the Other then, in a cliché, is to walk in another man’s shoes.

Is forecasting such a bad thing?

This is in response to a few posts about forecasting by constructivists, plus some feedback on my own. Predicting versus Forecasting. Well, if predictions are made by simplifying certain variables, are predictions made to the best ability? I think what constructivism brings to the table is more of a discussion. Furthermore, identities are important. Understanding the way in which leaders, societal groups, etc perceive themselves in relation to others is extremely important, especially today when non-state actors are so powerful and influential. It may be hard to predict what such groups will do because they do not fit into the "plain and simple, anarchic international system" as viewed by realists. Instead, they complicate the picture and make predicting much more difficult. However, putting these actors aside and looking just at the structural units that make up the world, will not help us in predicting. Instead, the forecasting that constructivists can contribute and work along side the work that other IR theorists are doing in order to make a better "prediction" for the future.

In class on Thursday we discussed a few various topics that circled back to the fact that various sorts of identity are based on how you personally perceive it. This implies that everyone, based on their background and education, has their own personal lens in which they view things. This stemmed from the question, "Where does stability come from?" How we see ourselves is not necessarily how others perceive us, which goes back to the old idiom, 'actions speak louder than words.' What I found most interesting about the whole lecture in class was that in the world system, it really only matters how others view you. Personal identity is based on others, and their own identity. What phased me about this whole conversation is that things are so interdependent and what one country may see as a reasonable action everyone else may view as completely wrong. For that reason, I believe various international systems succeed. An easy example is how the US went to war without consulting the United Nations, which has lead to great criticism from the rest of the world. What we felt was appropriate at the time, was not in fact the way the rest of the world (for the most part) felt, and without using the UN to measure the support we would get, we acted and have received grave criticism for it.