And with that Intro to World Politics is done and we’re getting ready for finals and winter break! The semester flew by ridiculously quick, and I just wanted to say that I’m really happy to have had the opportunity to have class with all of you GloSchos, Preston, and Professor PTJ. This class was really interesting and exposed me to new ways of thinking about and discussing politics, through lenses I’d never considered or had words to express before. For me, personal identity has always been something I’ve questioned and had a deep interest in and was how I got involved in international politics. As an adoptee and product of China’s One Child Policy, since I was little I’ve always been aware of the deep effects public policy can have on individual lives, and international policy is then a way for me make changes in both the countries I call home: the US and China. Being stuck in an in-between place gives me a very “in-between perspective” when looking at politics. At the same time however, I never considered how personal identity construction could affect entire systems and policies, such as inspiring nationalism and nationalist tendencies. I never considered identity politics as leading to “a real job”, and yet here I am preparing to take the Identity, Race, Gender, and Culture thematic area gateway next semester. . .all because I found constructivism as we discussed it to be such a fascinating idea.
Regarding our final paper, I haven’t completely hammered out what my thesis is going to be, but I would like to incorporate constructivism, potentially through the “us versus them” mentality, competition and who’s allowed into the “liberal world order”, and how perceived exclusion leads to increased nationalism (as in the case of China) and extremism. Or I’ll talk about nationalism and extremism in general (such as the rise of populism, terrorism, and hate crimes). This semester has definitely been a period of huge personal growth and self-reflection for myself. I think through the college experience here at American, even though I was already very confident in knowing myself, I’ve become even more aware of what I feel like defines me and what my goals are in life. I am an overthinker. I am someone who made a whole five-year plan when I graduated high school and someone who was excited to retire by age twelve. Throughout high school I was very much what many would describe as “a wonk” and I was very fastidious about doing all the right things to “prepare for the next step” and all that. . .but this semester I’ve found myself to really be over that whole culture. There’s so much more to life than classes and good grades, and I say that as someone who has absolutely loved the classes at AU and the passion from both professors and students. I want to do work that impacts individuals and communities; I want to work in or with Asians; I want to meet people and go places. Maybe that’s really through a double major in stats or econ and an accelerated program, or maybe it’s through research projects in constructivism and gap years in China, or maybe it’s through a combination of those things and other ventures. I really don’t know what I’m doing, where I’m going, or how I’m going to get there, but I hope that I can always keep a feeling of “meaningfulness” and “passion” along the way. I really do want to sincerely thank everyone who has been a part of my life this semester, including everyone involved in our World Politics class. Everyone’s intelligence, supportiveness, and unwavering curiosity has been truly inspirational. I hope everyone has a good finals week, a great break (safe travels!), and I look forward to seeing everyone next year!
0 Comments
2018 has been a wonderful year for Asian representation (2018 Winter Olympics, BTS, Crazy Rich Asians, etc.) and I was looking forward to what perspectives this book had to offer. Rosenblum very clearly tries to integrate characters of color, as seen through naming practices (Huang, Koi, etc.) and geographic references- New Taipei, Guangzhou, etc.- but I continually found myself asking: for what purpose? Now, I agree that there doesn’t always need to be a strict purpose for diversity- this risks limiting stories of color (and people of color) to be strictly defined by their race and its accompanying struggles (see: caricatures of “black pain” and characters that aren’t “Asian enough”) - but as an Asian American a lot of these attempts at inclusiveness felt added in without any real meaning or logic.
Representation is about being able to see yourself in media; because of all the cliches and inaccuracies I don’t see any semblance of myself in this work, even though I, like Ahni, am “an unselected mix of Taiwan aboriginal, Han Chinese” (3). As the book went on I became so distracted by the Asian misconceptions that I couldn’t even focus on the plot or the blog post and was reading just to find the next gem of ignorance, including:
Rosenblum’s lack of awareness regarding how people of color really feel is also apparent in the quote “Casually, race no longer mattered. Deep down, it did” (159). Mary Rosenblum is a white author; as us people of color know, if race matters “deep down” (ie systematically [which is the definition of racism]) then race matters casually too. To believe that race would not matter casually in an otherwise inherently racist society is wishful thinking by someone who has not personally experienced racism. It also makes it even more difficult to buy into Rosenbaum's central argument of genetics being a deciding factor in identity. So why did Rosenblum as a white author take it upon herself to write a novel in which race relations, ethnic construction, and identity politics ae such integral themes? Other lingering questions that I have:
On p. 245 of the novel Horizons, Ahni Huang declares: "The only way to keep them safe is to be separate. A nation with the power to protect its own." Do you agree with her?
Upon reading the quote “The only way to keep them safe is to be separate. A nation with the power to protect its own” (245), I immediately thought of Week 10’s theme on “us”, “them”, and “national security”. First, it is necessary to define “us” and “them”. With the way that this quote is written, the “them” is ambiguous; it is not immediately apparent whether the goals of the “them” align, conflict, or even are related to the goals of the “self”. To keep “them” safe, do we need to separate “them”, or do we need to separate ourselves? In the US under Jim Crow laws, in order to protect white people from “dangerous” and “morally corrupt” black people, laws were created which made separate (better) facilities for white people to keep “them” (white people) away from black people. On the flip side, now in order to protect “American” interests, US policymakers are busy thinking of ways to close the Mexican border and keep “them” (rapists, criminals, and drug dealers) away from “Americans”. According to conservative rhetoric, this keeps Americans safe and keeps the US “a nation with the power to protect its own” (245). These racial precedents are important in the “us” and “them” because Mary Rosenblum’s discussion of “us” and “them” in the above quote is also based on a divide between the human race and a similar-yet-different biologically-advanced version of the human race. Rosenblum then discusses “tribe/not tribe hardwiring” (158), raising the question of whether differences between “us” and “them” are human constructions or natural occurrences? Race (which is mentioned so often in Horizons) is a man-made construction based on biological factors that we’ve assigned arbitrary value to, and stemming from a system which profits off of subjugations of the other (see: phrenology and the American race-based slave system). Similarly, the biological differences which supposedly define the human/non-human races in Horizons are also only looked at through the dominant group (human’s) lense of what “humanity” is. This then only serves to reaffirm the dominant group’s position as the dominant group. Regarding race relations, Rosenblum writes “If anything , the vanishing barriers or distance and physical isolation had increased the racial divides rather than healing them” (159); besides in Horizons this can be seen in the growing populism movement in Europe, or in The Conquest of the Americas when Spanish-Native proximinity is what gave rise to constructivism and justified vilifications (and extermination) of the “other”. In the quote on 245, Ahni is talking about creating a state by the humanoid species for the humanoid species. However as we discussed in class going back to ideas of the “double consciousness”, creating separation does not fix the issue, it just erases it. I think the risk would be that you create these separate states without actually addressing the root problem, and that allows the hate of the other to grow and continue to fester independently. For example, North Korea and South Korea are separate states divided by a communist/capitalist ideology, yet despite having their own separate states from which they can protect their own interests, their relationship hasn’t really improved. Given these purposeful parallels to current and historical race relations, and the obvious negative consequences our past racial hierarchies have created, I don’t think it is possible to say that separation can mean safety, when those ideas of safety and separation are so steeped in racist ideology. Separation does not fix the root causes of hatred or danger, and instead reaffirms the “other”. Happy Thanksgiving everyone, welcome back from break and welcome to finals! I had a good Thanksgiving; it was definitely really nice to be back home and have food that wasn’t TDR, and I look forward to going back in another twelve days.
Truthfully, I was really nervous about my group’s presentation in terms of time management and working around the break, but I’m really happy with how everything turned out. I also found this simulation to be a lot more engaging the last one, and I enjoyed researching Disney’s corporate responsibility. As the Disney Company, our focus was mainly on focusing on continuing the Disney brand of promoting culture and innovation, and inspiring individual innovation. As a large, profitable corporation engaged in multiple forms of philanthropy and charity work, I think Disney is in a good position to work with whatever resolution is decided. Our philosophy is based on supporting individual ingenuity in order to create better infrastructure and stronger communities, and given that Disney has the large profit margins to back up its plans, I don’t see any outcome where Disney is excluded from the resolution. Furthermore, Disney as both a charity and a hugely profitable company is able to appeal to a wide demographic, from Emma Watson the individual to the US Chamber of Commerce. As a whole however, I am curious to see how the class is able to come to a resolution. As PTJ mentioned in class, it’s typical for these types of intergovernmental meetings to be a mix of discussing the issues at hand and discussing the credibility and politics of various organizations. Our class discussion has stayed true to this pattern, but I can’t help but wonder why; for what purpose? While I acknowledge that the world is not ideal, and that my thoughts might come across as overly naive, I simply don’t understand why there has to be so much interorganizational politicking. Regarding sustainable development, I don’t understand why organizations feel the need to tear each other apart instead of working collaboratively for the goals that we, on paper, seem to share. Of course each organization has their own ideals and goals which are at times contradictory to other organizations, but can’t those be put aside in favor of common goals and actual resolutions? Does criticizing other organizations actually amount to anything productive? It’s interesting that within our Global Scholars group there was a lot of discussion about forming a complete coalition and creating a shared proposal even before class on Thursday. However, as soon as question time came for each group, we seemed to turn against one another and resort to petty discussion of the credibility of other organizations. Is this type of result inevitable even across common goals? Is there a way for this division and hostility to be prevented? Or if it can’t be prevented, how can we overcome it? As it is, Shell seems to be the main aggressor in criticizing other organizations (instead of the issue of sustainable development), and I haven’t yet figured out why. Would it not be easier to work with the other organizations and join the nascent coalition of everyone but Shell? What does Shell have to gain from directly criticizing other organizations and distancing itself? Or, while I can understand Shell’s hesitance with organizations like Oxfam, I don’t understand why Shell is so antagonistic towards Disney Company, even though we are not direct competitors. I’ll be interested to see what the last two groups have to say tomorrow, and I look forward to working on a joint resolution. |
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
|