Class Discussion (Kelsey Hunter, Week 4 Dialog)

Yesterday during our class discussion about the prospects for peace and nuclear deterrence, I couldn't help but feel that the general tendency of our class is rather Realist. I also couldn't help but notice that we are very U.S.-centric in our views on how the world system ought to work and how to apply theories. While some people brought in some ideas about low politics- economics, religion, culture, etc., the discussion took on a very Realist tint when the topic of nuclear deterrence was brought up. It seemed to me that many of my classmates subscribe to the view that security concerns are what ought to be paramount. While I agree that security is more important, I might not agree that the reason we have not had world war is due to nuclear deterrence. I think nuclear deterrence helps the cause of world peace, but I would like to believe economic interdependence and globalization help too.

I also think our continued focus on Realism and security concerns stems from being Americans. The U.S. is a hegemon, although some may argue a declining hegemon, and the concerns of the U.S. especially following 9/11/01 have been concerns of security first and foremost. We are not prone to cooperate in the world system, whether it be for security concerns, environmental concerns, sometimes economic concerns, and we don't like other countries having any authority over us (International Criminal Court, Security Council, etc.) I think the way the U.S. participates in the world system has influenced our beliefs about how the world system should be organized, and I think this is reflected in our class discussions by the continuing return to Realist ideas even when we are discussing other -isms.