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
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. 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! 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~~~
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! With the end off Week 7 I have officially been in college for two months already (counting welcome week); I vacillate between feeling like I’ve been here for no time at all and feeling like I’ve been here for ages. It hasn’t started yet, but I’m excited for Week 8 to be over so that I can finally be done with all my midterms work. I know that AU schedules midterms over three weeks to try and reduce stress, but I feel like it just stretches out the stress and anxiety over a longer period of time. I didn’t even get to really relax over “Fall Break” because I have three midterm projects. . .
Anyway, today I just wanted to briefly discuss my feelings on identity and the intersectionality of multiple (marginalized) identities within society. Identity is something that I’m always thinking about, and questions of identity have plagued me for as long as I can remember. The glasses example that we did in class was a microcosm of the decisions that I have to make every time I introduce myself. I am a Chinese immigrant (but not like a FOB [Fresh off the Boat]); I am Chinese-American (but also an adoptee with white parents); I am a Chinese adoptee (but also not ethnically Chinese). Everything that I say or don’t say has its own connotations in the way that I am perceived by others, and so I must make decisions that I think will be most beneficial, while also not trying to “hide my authentic self” and alienate other aspects of my identity, while also not blabbing my whole life story to everyone because truthfully the guy chatting me up at the bus stop does not need or deserve to know the intimate details of why my parents wanted to adopt me. People with contacts had to make a decision of which part of their identity was stronger: having glasses, or the appearance of not having glasses. In that choice is the anxiety of double-consciousness and having to actively cultivate your identity, but also strength in being able to understand multiple facets of identity. Truthfully, it was a bit disheartening how quickly people in the glasses group were willing to tout their own superiority. Of course it was all said in jest, but at the same time I couldn’t help but wonder if it was a deeper representation of how quickly identities and superiority complexes can be formed and internalized. There is something extremely primal and intrinsic about identities- you physically are or you aren’t a race by virtue of your birth (no Rachel Dolezal, “transracial” is not a thing outside of the adoptee community), yet race, ethnicity, and nationality are also at the same time completely arbitrary concepts that society gives value to. Of course we are all born a certain way, but it is the actions that take place afterwards that really define how we understand, internaliz, and interact with those innate characteristics. My birth parents are some kind of ethnicity which they have passed on to me; regardless of that I don’t know my birth parents and thus was raised believing myself to be Zhuang (a Chinese ethnic minority). What I was raised to be does not change what I am per se, but it does show how arbitrary identity classifications can be. A Han Chinese person born and raised in China and a Chinese-American person will all experience the same racism in America - the people shouting “Ramen!” at me out of their car in Bethesda honestly couldn’t have cared less whether I was Chinese-Chinese or Chinese-American - however the way that we think about and feel that racism will be different. The Chinese-Chinese person will maybe be annoyed and then move on with their life knowing that this racism does not severely impact their future or their standing in “society” (because to them the important society is not American society, but Chinese society). There is no “double-consciousness” here. To the Chinese-American however, this racism reinforces how no matter what they do or how they think and feel about themselves, they still will not be accepted into American society. Then given this, should the Chinese-American try to integrate himself into American society or Chinese society, knowing that neither will truly accept him? That is the bind of being a racial minority in the US, and that is what creates the double-consciousness. Even if others feel aspects of oppression, they will not necessarily gain double-consciousness. That distinction needs to be made clear in order to really understand the complexities of racial categories and racial discrimination. Why can’t white people experience racism and double-consciousness the way people of color can? Because racism is systematic oppression due to your race that stems from institutionalized imbalances of power. You may have been bullied or felt weird being a “minority” in a school filled with POC, but at the end of the day you are supported by a society where people like you are represented on TV, in the police force, and making laws which benefit you. Therefore, you cannot feel double-consciousness because of your race. This is not to say that American POC are inherently “woke” or are somehow “morally superior” due to having to contend with racial oppression or double-consciousness, or that people in the dominant culture do not deal with problems. It is only to say that racial minorities must deal with these problems in addition to the problems experienced at all levels of society such as sexism, classism, or homophobia. Originally I did not mean to make this post as long as it is here, but all of this has weighed on my mind heavily since class on Thursday. I look forward to exploring these ideas more as we continue on throughout the semester. This week began our first week of college midterms...I’m honestly quite stressed about my midterms; hopefully they all turn out okay. We shall see...For this class I’m not too worried and I am interested to see what the topic for our midterm paper will be like. My goal is that regardless of the topic, I can combine my previous knowledge with new research instead of just relying on information I’ve learned and synthesized before. This will help challenge me and make sure I’m making the best use of my classes to really learn as much as possible.
I was really intrigued by the Shotter reading this week and thought it brought up some very interesting philosophical questions. There were a couple things I wanted to discuss but did not have time to in class:
Now we’ve just finished the fifth week of classes and are quickly heading into midterms. As such, I think it’s a good time to reflect on how the course is going up to now. So far, I really enjoy this class and the discussion-based approach. As I’ve discussed with Olivia, our cohort has a very broad range of interests, backgrounds, and approaches regarding politics, international relations, history, and culture. Thus when we all come together for class we have a wealth of knowledge to pull from, resulting in unique and lively discussions. I’m always so impressed with how passionate my classmates are, and listening to them talk about subjects that they’re particularly interested in or knowledgeable about motivates me to read more and become a more informed person.
My own interests and background is strongly rooted in East Asian culture, history, and politics, and this semester I’m taking two other classes about international studies: 21st Century Silk Road and Chinese Politics. As a result, a lot of my contributions to class are centered around Chinese examples. While I do really enjoy discussing China, moving forward, I want to do more personal reading about other parts of the world such as Europe and Africa. This would allow me to compare and contrast (and thus more fully understand) China and the U.S.’s political systems and philosophies within a more holistic world context. I want to learn more about past political systems and philosophies and how they interact to create the various ideologies and understandings we have today. I also want to learn more about economics and better understand how wealth affects power and political systems. Sometimes in class I feel behind because I lack the same in-depth understanding on certain topics as other classmates, and this makes me nervous to speak because I feel like I can’t contribute at the same level. I hope that as I read and listen more I’ll be able to really form my own independent and educated opinions. I’ve also taken a couple classes on racism and income inequality in America, and this, as well as my status as an immigrant woman of color, definitely colors the way that I analyze texts and situations for this class. In our recent readings of Machiavelli and Locke especially we’ve specifically explored “societal ideas” about what the purpose of society and government is, who has power and who doesn’t, who benefits in society and who is sacrificed, and defining what is acceptable in society and what is not. From my experiences living with several marginalized identities and through previous courses taken, I think it’s incredibly important to always be critical. Who is really included when politicians or philosophers use the words “we”, “the people”, “society”, etc.? Who is not included? How does this further promote existing inequalities? How do these historic philosophical inequalities affect lived-in inequality now? What is “truth” (especially regarding morality), how do we define it, and how do we decide how to define it? In class I really like to take advantage of the diversity and pose these questions and maybe get people to think about things that are normally taken for granted. I also think that the first discussion we had about Awiti when we spent over half the class period discussing how we should discuss Awiti, set a really great tone for promoting constant question and discussion of things that seem obvious. All in all, I’m really enjoying this class and I look forward to continued growth throughout the rest of the semester! This week of SIS 105 marked the completion of a full month of college classes, and I alternatively feel as if I’ve been here for a long time, but also no time at all. For class we read Machiavelli's The Prince, a book which I had some background knowledge of but had never really delved into deeply. I found our class discussion on Friday to be especially interesting as it centered on Machiavelli’s central argument that “the greater good” is most important above all else.
I think everyone could easily agree that we should always strive to help the most people possible in the country become the best possible etc. etc., but the question remains of how we define who “the greater good” is. In the past in Western society, “the greater good” was thought of as white property-holding men, justifying such things as slavery and preventing women from voting. Given this, it is imperative that we think critically about how we define the greater good, who is included, whose interests are prioritized, and why; specifically how various aspects of privilege (ie race, gender, socioeconomic status, disability, etc.) shape those definitions. Or conversely, who are we most willing to sacrifice for “the greater good”? Furthermore, is “greater good” defined by power or population? An example used in class was that the Three Gorges Dam in China was a justified decision because 1.5 million displaced people pales in comparison to the billion or so in China. This would imply that population is most important in determining “greater good”. However, it was also suggested in our discussion and in The Prince that “the greater good” is synonymous with keeping the currently ruling government in power. Again, how do various privileges intersect to create and define the ruling class that we want to keep in power? I also wondered, what would Machiavelli say about peasant revolutions? These overthrow the previous systems of power, but potentially help “the greater good”; in these cases which side would Machiavelli approve of? This idea of sacrifice for the greater good is an especially important topic for me because my life is itself a direct product of China’s infamous One Child Policy. By the Chinese government’s estimate, this policy prevented some 450 million births and allowed for better distribution of resources, continued job opportunities, and continued rapid economic growth. If we think of this from a purely Machiavellian, “logical” standpoint, having the One Child Policy was justified. However the human cost included millions of forced abortions, a highly imbalanced gender ratio (both at birth and otherwise), and between 50 and 90 million “missing women” in China-- baby girls that were sex-selectively aborted and simply never born, baby girls who became victims of infanticide, baby girls whose births were never reported and who have to live their entire lives without access to any government resources, and baby girls like me who were abandoned in market places and in front of orphanages. All of us were considered collateral, necessary sacrifices for the greater good of the country, yet we had no say in these policies because we have no ruling power. How can our suffering be quantified, and who will take responsibility? Public policy and politics are inherently about people, and the policies that we put in place directly affect the lives of everyone in both big and small ways. To unilaterally ignore the humanistic side of policy in favor of a nebulous “greater good” puts us into an extremely dangerous position of creating policy without critical and holistic thinking. |
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
|