Incompatible Perspectives

There’s nothing we can do about the incompatibility between perspectives. Conflicting viewpoints are inevitable and unavoidable. There can’t be a “right” and “wrong” with respect to IR theories because every theory has its strengths and every theory has its weaknesses. Realism focuses on the defense of a nation backed by pessimistic reasoning. Is it an accurate statement then that no one is trustworthy, or that self-interest is always at the heart of every state’s actions? While there may certainly be times to be particularly cautious of other states’ intentions, this does not apply for every situation. Also, where do human rights fit in to the realist perspective? They seem to be left out…Does this make realism wrong or just ill-equipped to deal with issues regarding human rights? There are always exceptions to ways of addressing issues and to ways of thinking about issues. There can never be a set way to deal with everything because the variables of any given situation are never constant. So, we can’t choose one theory to live by and deem it “the best.” All theories focus on different aspects of the international system – security and power, global cooperation, and social change and intersubjectivity – all of which need to be applied at the appropriate times.

Often states do not act in a “pure” liberal/realist/constructivist fashion but rather adapt their theories to meet the needs of the situation at hand. For example, many argue that the United States acted outside liberal fashion in their quick decision to send troops overseas after 9/11. It doesn’t mean that liberalism suddenly became the wrong way to address a problem. Instead it demonstrates how certain conditions call for certain actions and in said circumstance, the United States had reason to act in a manner some may call "uncharacteristic."

Blog 6—

Just as World Politics is composed of different IR theories attempting to explain how international politics works, or how it should work, so too do these theories attempt to explain an international institution like Bretton Woods. Looking at IR as a whole, it is clear that not every state or individual with tangible influence in the system is in agreement with what philosophy is the best, and therefore each practices a different flavor of theory. The same could be true about how the different theories interact with international institutions. Is it possible that the three different premises could work harmoniously to achieve a general positive outcome? Or when the three IR theories are combined are their diversions simply too sharp to reconcile?

There is proof that they are in some way compatible because few, if any, of the current international institutions are homogenous in their IR views. Separate states enter with undeniably separate identities and many times unique goals and intentions, creating a sort of melting pot of IR thought. In these situations what ends up happening is that there is a majority or general consensus on how the institution is going to be run. The theory the institution operates under is not necessarily strictly one philosophy or another, but it is the ideology best fit for the organization; or at least that is the intention. In order for a state to enter into an international institution and experience any level of success, they are forced to concede some part of their views because these organizations are inherently based on cooperation and frequent compromise. A Hobbesian realist would be hard put to adhere to these standards of institutional involvement, which is one of the reasons why realists have an expressed disdain for these organizations.

Entering into an international institution like Bretton Woods brings radical realists or liberals back from the fringes of IR thought, into a situation that is more conducive to cooperation. Bretton Woods has a more liberal feel to the organization because it has a focus in installing a fair monetary measure for all states involved. However, there is also the realist aspect of states being interested in achieving the best value for their currency. Each institution is a conglomerate of ideas because if it were simply one theory it wouldn’t be a whole. There are gaps in realist, liberal, and constructivist thinking, and international institutions use each to subsidize the shortcomings of the others.

Reflection: America's Image

Seeing the promotional videos of America made me reflect upon the image we, as Americans, present of our country and the way in which it is perceived by outsiders. One of the welcome videos depicted America as the land of the green rolling hills where food is plenty and happiness is known to all. But really, how realistic is this? As Kate pointed out, campaigns deliberately show the best aspects of a given focus and intentionally avoid others…this is expected; it’s just how it works. But then who decided that what was portrayed in the video are the best aspects of America? I think a large part of American life was left out is the freedoms that encourage self expression and creativity.  If our country prides itself on its melting pot of diverse ethnicities, races, and religions, and on the uniqueness of individuals, then why weren’t these pieces present in the video? The only suggestions of diversity consisted of separate snapshots of different races and ethnicities. I don’t recall any reference to the arts and if there was one then it wasn’t memorable. Even a scene of New Orleans would have been testament to the rich culture of music and expression of originality present in the states. Also, I can understand the exclusion of religious elements or references to sexuality in a promotional video, because both are sensitive areas, but what about the handicapped?  Does our video welcome the disabled? Overall I think the video displayed a very bland, homogenized group of people that all seemed pretty superficial to me.

Reflection 5

I do believe reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is a controversial and important topic. I have discussed this in classes in the past, and it seems to me like most people have the same opinion in that it doesn't seem to be a big issue. The reason I think it is is that from the time children are 4 or 5 years old, they are taught the words of the pledge of allegiance and are told that they have to say it every day. The idea that children have to pledge their allegiance to a country is frankly, in my opinion frightening. It is almost as if by not pledging allegiance to the country, they might grow up to not be proud of the country, or believe that a different form of government is suitable. When I started elementary school in New York in 3rd grade after just moving there from England, what the pledge of allegiance actually meant never occurred to me. it wasn't until 9th grade that I realized what I was actually saying when I recited the pledge of allegiance, and also that I was pledging allegiance to a country that wasn't my country. So I stopped saying the pledge. Every day, for a year and a half, I was bullied because I didn't say the pledge of allegiance. Two guys who were in my homeroom would shout at me to say the pledge every day and call attention to it. People would stop me in the hallway to ask me why I didn't say the pledge every morning. In the end, I was forced to say the pledge every day because it became a huge problem. I was being bullied for not participating in something which was not relevant to me. I do not have a problem with the action of reciting the pledge; I have a problem with being forced to recite it like I was.

I also was very surprised by the "This is Alabama, we speak English" ad. To a certain extent, I did believe there were still people in this country who were anti-immigration and to some extent, prejudiced against foreigners, but I didn't realize that an ad like this could represent a significant amount of people.

Reflection 5—

The pledge of allegiance has garnered a bad reputation; it has become an enormously controversial institution in the United States. The fact of the matter is that it is not that controversial and not that important. There is the “under God” portion of the pledge, which is understandably divisive, but how much does that actually matter? If you don’t believe in God then don’t say “under God.” The pledge of allegiance by its nature is a personal pledge to your country, and if you don’t think that your country is omnisciently governed then omit that part; the words still flow quite nicely. The day that your government starts installing camera’s in every elementary school to see if each child is mouthing the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, is the day where you can be upset about it.

However, the crux of the dilemma with the pledge is that if people are upset with their government they refuse to say it. Where are the words “congress, president, government, vice president, cabinet, governor,” or any other word relating to contemporary government officials in the pledge? Hint: there aren’t any, so stop complaining about the pledge because you have a problem with George Bush or think a democratic majority in congress “sucks.” If every morning in your first period in high school you’re exhausted from staying up until 2am the night before playing Modern Warfare 2 and you don’t feel like standing up because you’re having trouble keeping your eyes open, then by all means stay seated. But if you stay in your seat as a pitiful act of ignorant protest against a pledge that promotes the ideals of “liberty and justice for all,” then maybe you should move to Canada.

Blog post 5

About the question of wether there are things states can and can't do based on social norms and expectations, Of course their are certain things states cannot do. Every state is subject to the judgements of other states, and not to mention international law, on every action they take at both an international and domestic level. If a state believes that another state is doing wrong by another state, or by it's people, it has been common in the past for that state to intervene when the situation proved to be unresolvable in any other way.

One good example is with genocide. Starting with the Nazi genocide on Jews, Homosexuals, and other minorities during world war II, there have been several other genocides in the past sixty years. Genocide is such an international outrage because the state itself, rather than protecting it's people, is killing off the people it deems undesirable. Even so, Genocide is a really tricky issue. It is really tricky to tell if Genocide is actually going on. One example is the controversial Turkish-Armenian genocide. According to Armenians, the Turks commited genocide against them in the World War 1 period. It is believed that there were 25 concentration camps, and that the death toll was somewhere near 1.5 million. Armenians are constantly fighting to have the genocide recognized by other countries. But the Turks insist that a Genocide never took place, there is nothing in the governmental archives about it, and in fact even accusing Turkey of genocide is against the law in Turkey. So when hearing two very different stories from both sides, it is very hard to tell wether or not something actually happened, thus making Genocide a really tricky topic.

Another issue, which seems to give everyone the chills when it comes up, is the production of Nuclear Weapons. The Cold War left the world forever fearful of the power of Nuclear weapons, after the Cuban missile crisis had everyone fearing for the end of the world. And according to the Center for Defence Information (http://www.cdi.org/) the US alone could possibly have enough Nuclear weapons to destroy the world, and they have since reduced their Nuclear Arsenal greatly. So it is natural that when you hear of another country developing a Nuclear Weapon, for example the current situation with North Korea, The rest of the world goes crazy over it. Right now even the US is highly concerned with the possibility of North Korea developing a Nuclear weapon, and are intervening to try to put an end to it. This has also happened with Iraq and Iran in the past; President George W. Bush was even suspected of falsely giving information of WMD's in Iraq to convince the Senate to invade. The development of nuclear weapons is almost prohibited on the world stage.

State Actions and Social Standards

With regards to the international system, there are most definitely actions that states should not take because they would be deemed unacceptable by social standards.

States should not attack or declare war on countries without reason. If one state were to invade another state and steal resources or kill their people without any justification, this would be unacceptable among social norms. Our social norms and expectations are based on morals and ethics; we expect states to act with honesty and integrity, to be fair and act rationally, and to work diplomatically with one another.    

In addition, states should not violate human rights. Violations would include genocide, torture, slavery, and rape, among other things. Certain basic rights apply universally and social expectations say that human rights must be upheld by justice, tolerance, and human dignity.