Hello friends, I hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving break and is feeling ready for all the finals and projects coming up as we enter the home stretch for first semester. I took the weekend off to enjoy time home with family (it was so nice being back home in Wisconsin) but now have to prepare for two presentations this week. I’m pretty nervous, so hoping things go well.
Regarding The Conquest of America, I feel like of the three theories we’ve discussed so far (realism, liberalism, constructivism), I most understand and relate to constructivism, however I also feel like I understand absolutely nothing. For me, given my experiences as a woman of color, understanding constructivism in terms of personal identity is very intuitive and relates to other classes I’ve taken and readings I’ve done. However “constructivism” as it informs international policy and systems is a lot more nebulous to me. I think a good distinction between the three is that while realism and liberalism are very concrete in principle and has specific actions associated with it, constructivism can be seen more as a mode of thinking in and of itself, rather than a prescribed set of policies and beliefs. Constructivism is a way of thinking and critically questioning systems and policies, but perhaps is not itself a system of policies. Regarding this, I have some questions that I posed to PTJ that others might also have their own opinions on:
In summary, I’ve got lots of questions and no answers, but I’m hoping to discuss these points with anyone that’s up for it!
0 Comments
Week 12 is over and Thanksgiving Break is quickly upon us, after which we only have 16 days until Winter Break. I look forward to being home, but cannot believe how quickly the semester has gone by. One eighth of college almost over already. . .
This week we focused on Todorov’s book The Conquest of America; thus far I’ve found it an interesting book, although difficult to get through. I understand the concepts and points being made, but find it difficult to read about the graphic dehumanization of the Native Americans because of how true it is, and how much certain stereotypes and caricatures continue to affect current American society, how much certain groups continue to be dehumanized. All of these acts of violence and discrimination and brutality should be inconceivable, except they’re not; they’re so real even now, and I find that sickening. This week I also read a book called When They Call You a Terrorist which is a memoir about the Black Lives Matter Movement. It’s a fantastic book and I highly recommend it, however it also stirred up a similar despondent response in me. Perhaps my feelings are colored by (no pun intended) my experiences as a woman of color in America, but sometimes the police brutality, the rape culture, the acquittals, the wage gap, the coded (or outright) statements by politicians, etc. just feel completely overwhelming and insurmountable and I don’t know what to do. I think it’s important to read these kinds of books and be cognizant of the historic oppression and violence which informs current society, but it’s definitely not “light reading”, and after finishing I’m still left asking myself “What should I do?” Something Corwin and I discussed in our small group was the significance of Spain on the Aztecs. Were the Aztecs going to fall anyway, and did the Spaniards just happen to come in at the right time? Could any other group have come in and been as successful as the Conquistadors? We also questioned why the Aztecs didn’t do more to fight off the Spaniards. In the present, knowing that the Spaniards won and saddled with the lens of “the Native Americans are perpetual victims to history”, I often felt frustrated reading the second part of The Conquest. It seems so obvious now that the Aztecs should consider the Spanish as enemies, and Todorov’s consistent characterization of the Aztecs as a passive group made it even more difficult to understand their reasoning, especially Montezuma's. One theory Corwin and I found particularly attractive was the idea of “cycles” (58), that the Aztecs were a group of conquerors and the conquered, and that the Spanish were just another part of this cycle, and were perhaps the lesser of two evils when compared to the Aztecs. Todorov uses “signs” to introduce ideas of actions beyond human control, however this brings into question questions of “fate” and “human choice”. Jeremy brought up a really interesting point regarding “environmental determinism”; that is the geographic formations of certain areas better lending themselves to empire and allowing certain groups to flourish while others do not. Is there a greater force, or multiple greater forces that control human outcomes? Are those forces spiritual or terrestrial in nature? And how much do those forces, and human will, impact the course of events? I certainly don’t have an answer to any of those questions, but Todorov’s book has definitely gotten me to think more about these questions. Anyway, happy Thanksgiving all, wishing everyone safe travels and a nice break! Week Eleven is drawing to a close, and what a week it was! Wednesday night I attended the International Dinner which was a really nice experience. It was much more laid-back than I expected it to be, but I enjoyed getting to chat with PTJ and other students over really delicious food. It was catered by a non-profit called “Foodhini” which works to provide DC refugees with jobs making food from their home cultures. The food was really good- I’d never had Iranian or Eritrean food before- and they also deliver, so it felt like a win all around. I would definitely recommend them! Of course, the big event of the week was the Midterm Elections. This was just the second election I’ve voted in (and my first time voting absentee), and I think I went into it much more informed than I’d ever been in the past. Since last week when we talked about “self” and “other” I can’t stop thinking about a statement my 21st Century Silk Road professor made: “There’s no such thing as domestic policy in an international world”. On Monday I actually participated in the webinar with Senator Russ Feingold (full transcript at bottom; go Wisconsin!) and was able to ask him his opinion on this statement, as well as its implications for US national sovereignty. He said: “The fact that he [Trump] keeps pushing all of these buttons on foreign policy at the same time he does the domestic makes us realize that the two really go hand in hand” (13:27:08). Senator Feingold, similar to what we discussed last Thursday in class, discussed how this issue is exemplified by the raging immigration debate. Immigration is a major domestic policy issue for the US, but it’s also a cause and effect of our international relations and actions in Mexico and Central America. Moving forward I think it will be really interesting to see what these midterm elections mean for the US (especially the Democratic Party’s) sense of self, and core values, and how those things will materialize in political discourse and policy. As we learn more about political theory I look forward to using those lenses to understand and analyze different politicians and how they apply those theories in real life. Slightly off-topic, but I really must say that it was so, so satisfying to participate in the 2011 Wisconsin Protests back in the fifth grade and now, almost eight years later as an adult, be able to vote Scott Walker out of office. Wisconsinites worked so hard for so long to make this happen, and to have it finally pay off is so exhilarating. While I’m not too optimistic about major reversals with the Foxconn deal, I do look forward to what Evers will do regarding Wisconsin’s education system, both at the primary/secondary and collegiate level. Wisconsin, and my hometown Madison in particular, have some of the worst racial achievement gaps in the country, and I’m hoping that Evers with his background in education will be able to put in place remediary policies. Lastly, I would like to extend my deepest condolences to all those affected by the California wildfires. That situation is truly horrific, and not due to a horribly mismanaged forest service, and I only hope that a resolution can be found as soon as possible. Until next week~~~
Continuing our "continuity and change" topic from last week, but this time in the sphere of political economy. The question is: have recent changes in the organization of the global political economy meant the end of the postwar "embedded liberal" order, or are they an example of "norm-governed change"?
When thinking about “embedded liberal” and how it’s changed over time, we must first consider what exactly “liberal” means. “Liberal” in the way we understand and use it now can be used to describe the embedded moral economy as discussed in the reading, or it can be used as a shorthand for freedom and democracy, which are in turn coded as “American values”. “Liberal” then becomes part of the American sense of “self” and excludes “others”. In contrast, communism is made to be the enemy of a global moral economy, and this is extrapolated to mean that communism is inherently dictatorial, undemocratic, repressive, and un-American (see: McCarthyism). This was the result of calculated propaganda by the US to support US business practices, and was originally used to dissuade the American labor movements. Given this then, when we lament the loss of the liberal world order now, are we upset by perceived changes in the economic systems of the world (the “cool kids table” as Blake put it), or are we upset by who those perceived changes are implemented by? Or put in real-world terms, does China as a major economic power fundamentally challenge the “liberal world order” by virtue of being an undemocratic, communist country? One glaring omission in “International Regimes” was silence regarding the Soviet Union, a country which in 1982 was considered the US’s biggest competitor on the world stage. Without these clear definitions of what constitutes a “liberal” world order, it is difficult to say whether the US has truly shifted away from it. If liberal is inherently a US quality, then the rise of China in recent years and the relative wane of the US and Europe would indicate yes, norm-governed change has prevailed. However if we use a broader definition of embedded liberal order, then I think arguments could be made that recent changes in the global political economy are simply an evolved continuation of post-war practices. In China there is the concept of tianxia, which stems from traditional Confucian ideology and is similar to the theory of “dependency states”; under tianxia all countries in the world operate as a large family unit with similar goals and are all led by a single dominant country. China’s new Belt Road Initiative (BRI) supports leadership in the economies of other countries as a form of aid, and is similar to the Marshall Plan in building up foreign economies in order to create stable consumer bases who can later become consumers/supporters of your own economy. Furthermore, the responsibility of the government to be involved in the economy as a way of protecting and ensuring the economic security of the people sounds very similar to a lot of the rhetoric surrounding China’s “communism with Chinese characteristics” which is often lambasted by the West. Regarding the Marshall plan however, as Katie brought up, much of the rebuilding was about rebuilding the world in the US’s own image in order to secure US economic interests; this would again then directly tie “world order” and “what the world order should be” to sustaining pre-existing (Western/”American”) ideals. In conclusion, I feel like I don’t really have an answer to this week’s blog question, other than it really depends on what we define as “liberal” and for what purpose. I look forward to hearing from others either in the comments or in class. This week was really good. Besides class I also had a Chinese speech competition on Sunday and I ended up taking silver, so next fall I’ll be studying abroad at Nanjing University in China. I haven’t been back to China in a while, so I’m really happy about this opportunity.
I also really enjoyed my office hours meeting with PTJ and found the advice really helpful. One of my biggest challenges in the class has been feeling like there’s a lot that I just don’t know about, or don’t know enough about, and as a result I often feel like I lack the means to contribute to class conversations in a meaningful way. Much of my knowledge is limited to my own interests and personal background, and consequently much of my input is centered around those things. Moving forward I plan on focusing on these three things:
By excluding people from national policy, the implicit meaning is that they are not a part of that national consituency and are thus part of the “other”. This goes back to Tuesday’s discussion of “self” and “other”, as well as Hsia’s article on Taiwan. Miranda in her response to my Week Ten Blog brought up a lot of good points about the formation of national identity and how that has shaped American policy over time. She talked about America’s “defensive policy”, which got me thinking constructively about why, historically, that would be such a popular choice. (My main takeaway was that British colonialism and the victory of the American Revolution endowed in the US a deep reverence for “personal freedoms” which came to be synonymous with “American”; a defensive strategy is necessary to protect “freedom” and therefore protect “America”.) Truthfully, in the past, although I’ve thought race and gender studies are really interesting, I never really considered it as something that people actually do and get practical jobs from. Being in this class however, I find myself readily reaching for the constructivist approach, especially as it relates to some of my other classes and experiences. Moving forward I think it would be interesting to use constructivism to try and understand the formation of other countries, specifically in countries that were imperialized/colonized. On to Week Eleven! |
KateHi, I'm Kate! I'm from Madison, WI and am planning on majoring in SIS focusing on East-Asia China. I like practicing kung fu, listening to music, and drinking bubble tea. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|