Nandy (Kelsey Hunter, Week 10 Substantive)

I found Nandy's article "The Beautiful, Expanding Future of Poverty" to be an extremely interesting read.
Firstly, he says that it seems as though poverty can not be eliminated through development due to a strange phenomenon in democratic countries. These countries will tend to ignore the poor once their is a sizable majority of people within the country who either benefit from the state or the economy. I think this statement was proven to be true to a T during the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. I believe that Americans were somewhat oblivious to the crushing poverty experienced by our own country members, not only in Louisiana but in every state and every city across America. If we had not ignored the poor, the images following Katrina may not have been so shocking or perhaps wouldn't have existed at all. This is not to say that recognition of the poor is the solution to doing something about their situation.
In the conclusion, he mentions "social deafness" and "moral blindness" that come from the psychology of the development regime. I am not sure I agree that everyone experiences this, and I would hope that I am not counted among the socially deaf and morally blind. The increasing influence of ideas such as the MDGs and increased presence of NGOs and things such as microfinance tell me that the numbers of people concerned with development (and not just increasing GDP per capita) are increasing. While it may be true that these groups in some ways exacerbate the feelings of destitution of these groups, in general I feel that more groups recognize the improvement of social as well as economic welfare as keys to eliminating poverty.

I'm not sure how to tie this reading into the broader theme of "ethics" for this week, but I think that it is important to note how morality and psychological effects of poverty, destitution, and development influence our views on what is right and wrong or what is best when it comes to dealing with issues related to poverty.

Language and Gender (Christine Porcaro, Week 9, Reflective/Comment)

I just wanted to comment of Christopher Martini's post from the blog group http://ir105f07.blogspot.com. He wrote about gender linguistics and how language influences the way people think. I find this very interesting because there was a study done where they went to elementary schools and told the kids about different careers that they could persue. At some schools they would talk about becoming an architect and they would use the pronoun "he" when describing the position. Then they would take a survey at the end of the talk and see who thought that they could become an architect. When surveyed the majority of the girls in the class could not see themselves becoming an architect. When they talked about becoming an architect with a gender neutral pronoun more girls said that they could see themselves becoming an architect. I am not sure if they ever just used a female pronoun, but if they did I am sure that there would be a marked difference in how the boys responded to the idea of becoming an architect. I guess I just find it interesting how much language affects how we think, which in turn affects our actions...which I guess in turn affects the international system.

Leadership Knows No Gender

After doing the reading and listening to the presentation on gender in IR, I am not entirely convinced that gender has meaningful implications for IR. As far as leadership positions in world politics go, I think that people have preconceived notions of what they look for in a leader. Most people look for characteristics like strength, honesty, courage, and confidence, among others, when looking for a leader to support. None of those characteristics is any more typical of a man than of a woman. I believe that men and woman can both be aggressive when necessary and passive when necessary as male and female leaders in world history have shown. Again on the issue of leadership, I think that women like Hilary Clinton learn to act like men I just think that she is a person to wants to present an image of strength and seriousness and that requires that she act accordingly. This does not leave her much room to acting compassionate and nurturing. Also, the idea that men are more prone to war than women is interesting considering the fact that Hilary Clinton voted in support of an invasion of Iraq in 2003. There have been female world leaders like President Mary McAleese of Ireland who have presented an image of a more passive and ‘nurturing’ type leader and so have male leaders in the world like Gandhi. Let us also recognize that Hilary Clinton is trying to run for president in a country that is at war and divided over that war and she needs to present a strong image in order to win that office. Leadership is defined by character not gender or sex. When is that last time that you have attended a leadership course of conference where they said that men make stronger and more aggressive leaders than women? Essentially what I believe is that both men and women have the capacity to have all of the attributes of a leader that people will follow, and can tailor those attributes to situation that they face as leaders.

Stuck in the muck... (Kelsey Hunter, Week 9 Dialog)

This post is an elaboration on a comment I left on Will Brehm's post "Moving About in a Negligee" from the Thoughts on Theories blog. To summarize what I got out of his argument (and not do it the justice it deserves), he points out that we (our class, but also most other people) have become so involved in discussing the intricacies of the masculine-feminine dichotomy and so focused on the either or of "housewife" vs. "powerful, masculine woman" that we fail to see the theory for what it is worth. We need to step back and take an outside looking in approach in order to really figure out what is going on within a theory. I think this is a very good point. I also think that there are several important points this idea brings up:
1. Even feminists are biased.
2. We focus on the dichotomies and inequalities rather than the broader picture because they are familiar to us.
3. The reason so many of us fail to see the connection of feminism to IR is that we are stuck in the details and the level of the housewife, teacher, or manly female leader.

To elaborate on the first point, I believe that it is extremely important to have alternative views to world politics. I do think it is necessary to have viewpoints from the "others" (women, the Global South, etc), and Feminist theory and Postcolonialism have the potential to be extraordinarily influential and powerful. However, I believe that all theories (yes especially Realism as well) are biased to the views of the authors and their particular circumstances. We must expect this, as people have different experiences, educations, and values. The problem Feminism runs up against is that women have long been the "victims" of world politics, dominance by men, rape, inequality, and so many other things. In my opinion Feminists take the voice of the victim all too often, even as they are claiming that empowering women is key. As we have experienced, the victim, especially when she is a women and the perpetrator is a man is not often given the credibility or respect she deserves. The female bias in feminism prevents it from achieving the credibility it deserves. We made the point today in our presentation that Runyan and Peterson seem like they are whining, but in reality they are just presenting cold hard facts!

My point about the bias that is inherent in Feminist theoretical literature is that it prevents us from moving beyond that bias. We get stuck in the muck of masculine-feminine, housewife vs. powerful woman, and things like sexism in the military. These things are real to us, some women identify with the biases, some men and women abhor them; so our debate on feminism becomes as Mike, Erik, and Will pointed out- we lose sight of the relationship of feminism to IR and that is what matters the most in an IR theory class.

Say feminism three times in a row while looking in the mirror and you'll become one...try it! (Christine Porcaro, Week 9, Reflective)

Feminism seems to bring a lot of controversy along with it. With every point people might agree with there are plenty of other that people just totally reject. I really like this about feminism though. I feel that it fosters a conversation about a lot of topics that seemed to be overshadowed in regular IR discussion. I also find it interesting that people are so quick to say that they are not a feminist as if it were rare incurable disease that once caught will only mean certain death. I do not agree with all things that feminism says. But I do feel that many issues that feminism addresses (esp postcolonial feminist)are easily overlooked. When making international economic agreements to increase state profits are the rights of the poor women, men and minorities within those countries, who will be exploited, taken into consideration? Feminism helps bring to light these forgotten people. I tend to be an idealist to the point to where it becomes a downfall. I get excited about things like feminism because I view it as people helping people. It's people with many differences finding a common ground and fighting for a cause. I know it is not this glorious or always this effective but I still believe that feminism has created a new way of viewing the international system, which may seem narrow at times, but in the end atill has inspired a whole new way to view the world.

Misunderstanding?

Cynthia Enloe writes "One of the most disturbing feminist insights is that 'the personal is Political'. Disturbing, because it means that relationships we once imagined were private or merely social are in fact infused with power, usually unequal power backed up by public authority." In reading this i wonder if we are leaving something out of our definitions of what is masculine and what is feminine. Maybe masculine is what is public and obvious, while feminine is private and discreet. I think in our readings and in our discussions we might be overlooking the power of femininity. Maybe we underestimate the power of private relationships. If we think about it this way, there have been many men...powerful men....that have put their careers and reputations on the line for a woman (i.e. Bill Clinton). I think that which is feminine is sort or "mysterious" in a way (bear with me i am going somewhere with this). Many men and women would agree that "femininity" is a complex thing....hard for those who are not feminine to understand and hard for those who are to explain. For this reason maybe the reason why masculine figures try to suppress feminine ones is because they can not understand them and for that reason fear them. If we think about why people and groups engage in conflict....it's because we see the opposing side as the "other." That's all i've got for right now but i might come back to this in my personal response.

Gender Discussion, Reflection, Week 8

The class discussion today made me think about what qualifies as success in feminism. After one student pointed out that we shouldn't be looking at success as political success I felt much better about feminism within the United States. It's true, the most influencial people in my life have not been political leaders. Political leaders hav ebeen influencial on my society, my rules, and my culture but not on my individual life. The most influencial people in my life have been my parents, neighbors, and teachers. For the purpose of following the same discussion, I will accept that our society sees raising children and teaching as feminist roles. Regardless of whether or not these roles were filled by men or women, it has been the "feminist" roles that have been most important to my life.

Enloe, Week 8 Substantive

"Most militarizing states need women to seek to be patriots, yet need them to do so
without stepping over the bounds of ‘proper’ femininity, since that would then
dispirit a lot of men, who would feel that their own masculine turf is being chal-
lenged. In a patriarchal state, a woman, thus, can aspire to be a ‘patriotic mother’
but not a ‘patriotic citizen’. On the other hand, we have now increasing historical
documentation of women who have challenged this orthodox, gendered idea of
patriotism. These are women, for example, who have sought to be voters in the
name of patriotism." - enloe interview

For some reason, I am always quick to critique the feminist view point. I don't see it as a way of thinking that works universally but rather needs to develop (or not) based upon each country. To me, the development of feminism is very much like the development of democracy. In both, I hold favorable viewpoints and believe that my life was made better by both; however, I feel very strongly that both democracy and feminism will fail unless voluntarely adopted by the nation or state. If forced, I feel both will fail horrible and probably lead to backwards thinking. I am inherently against feminists, though I am very much in favor of feminism. That being said, I feel Enloe's approach is too aggressive. Feminism can't just appear out of every circumstance, but rather the country has to be in a place where it can be accepted. This tends to occur, as far as I have found, when states are in need of labor. Think of the feminist movement in the United States. Women did obtain rights because they finally wore down the government. They have rights because the country needed them during World War II, which allowed women to see what it would be like to have rights, job, etc. Maybe the fact that militarizing states require women to be patriots at all is a step in the right direction.

No Place for Feminism in IR

In the reading for this week by Cynthia Enloe, I was impressed at the level of thought she had given to the subject of women in powerful or subordinate roles. She analyzed the role of women in advertising, sexual abuse situations, and the Third World, and each time she took it from a different angle than I was expecting. But there's one huge aspect that is missing from her argument: how exactly are women discriminated against in International Relations?

I completely reject her argument that women in powerful positions exhibit masculine traits, because her definition of "masculine" only mirrors what has been done for many centuries. Therefore, by her thinking, a woman who maintains the status quo while in power (even if that is what is best for her nation) is succumbing to the pressures of the office and acting like men before her.

Another objection I have is that there are examples of female heads of state who have gone to extreme measures to keep their power and did not feel pressure to step down or buckle to a male-dominated society. Indira Ghandi was India's first (and to date, only) female prime minister; her reign did not keep the "status quo" at all in India. She came from an extremely nationalistic and political family, and her rise to power was thought to be a signal for women the world over that doors at the top were opening. Did she succumb to pressure to maintain the status quo? Hardly. She is best known for her left-wing economic systems, Operation Blue Star against Sikh militants (eventually causing her death by assassination), and her declaration of a state of emergency in 1975 so that she could maintain power when it seemed that she was going to be removed from office after it was found that she had cheated to win an election. She actually caused such an uprising in her refusal to resign that she created riots, which she used to declare a state of emergency and keep power. Does this sound like a woman who is confined by society's definition of what a woman should be?

I don't buy Enloe's claim that woman don't have a place in world politics. Elizabeth I of England (assuming the far-flung speculation that she was a man is wrong), Golda Meir, and Margaret Thatcher played instrumental roles in their nations' histories. Eleanor Roosevelt and Eva Peron did not hold political office, yet still had enormous impacts on their states as First Ladies.

Enloe's Feminist Conspiracy Does Not Apply to the Military

Enloe’s “Conclusion” hurts the feminist theoretical argument more than it helps it. Enloe’s criticism made me a little angry, and I am not a feminist hater. Enloe makes some point that I believe are frankly not true and reflect more paranoia than constructive criticism on the part of Enloe. Enloe talks about women’s relationship with the military being one in which they offer their sexual services to convince soldiers that they are manly. I am an ROTC cadet and my father was in the Air Force for 17 years and I have never felt in anyway that women were being used to convince me or anyone that I know in the military that they are manly. In fact during training and deployment officers usually do the opposite and tell their soldiers not to think about home and their wives or girlfriends because they need to focus on what they are doing. Actually I have been told by manly soldier who have gone to Iraq for 15-18 month deployments that their wives had it tougher then they did during the deployment. While the husband is in Iraq his wife has to manage all of her personal affairs and now all of the affairs of the household as a whole since her husband cannot do his share because he is away. Furthermore she has to do all this while constantly being worried about the fact that someone she loves is in a war. Soldiers are the ones in combat so they know when to be worried for their lives and when they can relax because they are back on base and not out on patrol. Their wives do not know what their husbands are doing at all times while they are on deployment so they do not know when they can relax their fears and worries. They take a huge emotional toll and a lot of strength to overcome, it is no easy task that should be shrugged off as offering sex to make soldiers feel manly.

Enloe also goes too far when she says that, “They (Male Officials) have acted as though their government’s place in world affairs has hinged on how women behaved (Enloe 199).” Enloe sites immigration, labor, civil service, propaganda and military base policies to support this claim. I cannot speak for her other example (for which she offers no examples or evidence) but I can speak for the use of military base policies to control women. On military bases men and women sleep in different barracks and do not live together not because women are a cancer but because the military is a professional environment and there is not room for any kind of sexual tension that may arise from having men and women share the same showers,, bathrooms, and sleep spaces. Women also have to say “Woman on the floor!” before they enter a male floor of a barracks and need to wait for an “All clear!” before they can enter. This is more to protect women than men because it lets and men who are changing on the floor know that a woman is coming so they can cover-up. This policy keeps women from seeing anything that they do not want to. The only other base policy that I can think of that Enloe might take offense with is the policy that women cannot serve in combat arms units. The reason for this is very simple, the strongest woman will never be as strong of the strongest man. A perfect example I know of is a female ROTC cadet at Bucknell University. She can get a better score on the men’s scale of the Army Physical Fitness Test then me but she only weighs 120 pounds. Now if the Army let her, probably the most physically fit girl you can find, serve in an infantry unit what happens when she needs to throw on a 130 pound rucksack for a week-long mission, or when one of her fellow soldiers who weighs 230 pounds gets wounded. There is no way that she can drag that person to safety. In that situation when bullets are flying and people are being killed what is important to the Army is not a victory for women’s rights because a woman is serving in combat, what is important to the Army is how is that wounded soldier going to get to safety. It is about life and death not equality. If all the soldiers in combat units are men then the Army does not have to worry about this issue and that makes it a lot easier for the Army to conduct combat operations.

I understand that Enloe feels that women have been marginalize in world politics but I feel that she leans a little too close to conspiracy theory in her criticism of the system. There is certainly some marginalization of women in world politics and domestic policies but there is not a vast self-conscious effort to carry out that marginalization. I know this because I know that the military (which Enloe sites as being part of this effort) does not use and abuse women. Any such activity is illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and should be stopped. The military has practical reasons for any policy that it has which may be perceived as sexist by an outsider but that military is not sexist and these policies are not sexist, but practical. I feel that Enloe is hurting the feminist cause more then helping it because she is making the issue more divisive in a effort to reconcile it which does nothing but make it worse.

IR is personal? (Christine Porcaro, Week 9, Substative)

In Cynthia Enloe's conclusion of her book Bananas, Beaches and Bases she talks about how "the international is personal." When I was reading this I kept thinking of the relationship between Mexico and the United States and how it affects the male and especially the female workers in Mexico. With the hundreds of factories owned by US companies placed in Mexican territory, it has brought a lot of new jobs to Mexico. This relationship between the US and Mexico has created economic ties that are supposed to create a benefit for both countries. What is interesting about this is that while the people in power in Mexico and the United States (the majority of them being men) are reaping more of the benefit of US factories being stationed in Mexico, the poor women and men of Mexico are left to work long hours under horrendous conditions with minimum payment. These international decisions made by the people in power reflect their own personal interests. These decisions, however, have a profound affect on the people within the country. Women need to be made visible so that when international decisions are being made, they will not be exploited, like they have been in the past through economic agreements controlled by men. This is where I feel that feminism can become quite narrow. Women are not the only ones to be exploited or taken advantage of because of their lack of visibility. People of various religions, cultures, economic status, etc have been overlooked by the people that wield power like it was a god given right. The international is personal and I feel that people need to be more aware of the gender and cultural dichotomies that they perpetuate through their use of power. Ignorance of these dichotomies is easier than confronting them but what is easiest is not always the most effective or beneficial response to problems that past ignorance has already created.

Hooper's "gender variable" (Kelsey Hunter, Week 9 Substantive)

Of all the readings so far on feminism, the one I most agree with is Charlotte Hooper's piece, "Masculinities, IR, and the 'gender variable.'" Hooper, instead of discussing how IR shapes femininity and how femininity shapes IR, focused on the relationship between masculinity and IR.

Her conclusion is that while gender is now an important variable to be concerned with in IR (for reasons such as the resurgence of ethnic rivalries and identity politics), gender theorizing can not be expected to be accepted by mainstream theorizing. Feminists and others can not expect to graft feminist theory onto mainstream IR theory and have people accept it as valid. The reason is that mainstream IR theory, Realism in particular, has always separated the public from the private and the domestic from the international. Theorizing about gender forces us to confront private relationships (as Cynthia Enloe points out) and because gender within nations is just as important in shaping relationships regarding gender between nations, we can not ignore domestic politics.

The reason I most agreed with Hooper is that I believe until feminism can reconcile their theory to mainstream IR theory, which is rather entrenched and still the dominant viewpoint, it will not gain wide acceptance or influence changes in world politics to the extent desired (which is not to say that women have not been making inroads to equality).

Faults of Feminism

During class today we discussed what issues feminism had overlooked. I feel that feminism has overlooked a series of issues, so many in fact that feminism has no arguement at all against other IR theory. My main problem with feminism is that it doesn't put the issues into context. Feminists argues around the issue of male dominance in politics. While I won't deny that men play a stronger role in world politics, I disagree with feminists that it has to do with any sort of system or stigma keeping women down. I feel that from what I know of the feminist arguement, it is very much focused on the US prospective of politics. Many Asian countries have had female leaders, as well as central American and Argentina. Women have rule some of the most powerful countries like England, Germany and Russia, and even several countries in the middle east. The issue isn't that women can't gain these positions, but rather than they maybe aren't qualified yet. Those who have benefited from equal rights and education are not necessarily the generations that are ruling right now, or are among the first. After a few generations of women with the same educational opportunties as men, I think we will see a shift in US politics. Most of all, however, it is important to remember than most countries in the world have already made this shift.

Dependency theory again (Kelsey Hunter, Week 8 Dialog)

I wrote previously about the relationship I saw between dependency theory and constructivism, and now I will write again about a few points on Dependency theory, mainly because it intrigues me. Last year I took a class on North-South relations, a theory based class on economic development. Throughout the class we learned about the different theories of why nations are developed, "un"developed, and as Dependency theorists put it "under"developed. I find the distinction between "un" and "under"- developed to be one of great importance when discussing Dependency theory. Undevelopment is more or less how Modernization theory views countries that have not reached the development status of the modern Western post-industrial states. It is basically a status quo state of backwardness that is inherent in the state, its people, and its economy. Underdevelopment by contrast is a process. The Dependency theorists see underdevelopment as what happened to countries after they came in contact with the metropole. They believe the relationship between the metropole (First world, colonializers, Westerners, etc.) and the periphery (Third World, colonies, etc.) made the situation in the periphery worse than it was before. The relationship of dependence and the institutions that come along with it cause the periphery to become even more backward, benefits the metropole only, and creates a situation in which the periphery has no future chances of improving their lot.

The problem I see with Dependency theory however is that it does not offer solutions to the periphery states except to completely extract themselves from their relationship with their metropoles, which in effect would mean they would have to cut off ties with the world system completely. To me, this is extremely unpractical and as pointed out in the lecture notes is why Dependency theory can't account for the success of the Asian Tigers. (Although by some accounts, their development was in part due to a very inward looking strategy of government support and the like, but that is another thing all together.) I think when discussing development it is important to realize that neither Modernization nor Dependency theorists can offer all of the answers to the puzzle of developing.

Chakrabarty's view on history (Kelsey Hunter, Week 8 Substantive)

Chakrabarty's piece "Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History: Who Speaks for "Indian" Pasts?" brings up a very interesting point about the place of history in the education of any schoolboy or girl. History is "embedded in institutional practices that evoke the nation state" and this role of history teaches everyone that "the nation state is the most desirable form of political community" (19). Chakrabarty claims both European imperialism and third-world nationalism is responsible for this aspiration to the nation state. The Europeans implanted the notions of "freedom" and "citizenship" in the minds of their colonial subjects (not citizens) and although these ideas take on meanings distinct from their original European meanings, freedom and citizenship became the aspirations of the natives both pre and postcolonialism. The intense influence of European dominance on their colonial subjects is revealed in the ways the subjects begin to view modernity and also nationalism. These influences create the contradictions inherent in any history that claims to be "Indian". Any Indian history is one of "lack" or "inadequacy" precisely because it has been influenced by Europeans.
After all of this discussion of what is missing in Indian history, I found it interesting that Chakrabarty concludes not by claiming a need to revise history as written by Indians, but instead to revise history as written by Europeans or at least history about Europeans. He sees this need to dispose of such a Eurocentric history of the world as one that would also have to dispose of "modernity" and "citizenship" as the ideals and themes of history. I personally do not believe this will happen because no one wants to portray themselves in a negative light, so I do not think Europeans will revise their history, but I do think it is important that those living in the so-called "Third World" or the subaltern continue to seek their own history and to portray it in their own context.

Postcolonialism and Change

Overall, postcolonialism’s main contribution to the world of IR, I believe, is its call to recognize differences. Other than that it is seems to be a scholarly conspiracy theory with no solutions. Under postcolonialism the West is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. If a country like the United States interacts economically with a country in the global South and as a result that country loses some of what it used to be in return for modernity and advancement, then postcolonial scholars will be angry with the United States for ‘colonizing’ that country. This anger fits with their conspiracy theory that the United States and the West want to develop the entire world into the West in practice and identity. However what if the United States did not interact economically with that same country because we realize that they have their own identity that the US should not influence? Postcolonialist would be upset with this as well because it would fall right back into their paranoia that the West only cares about itself and has no time for the struggling global South. In this way postcolonialism is not productive or useful. Not matter what the West does in relation to the South postcolonialists will argue that the West is just listening to the voice of the Self without acknowledging the voice of the Other. As I mentioned before, I think that the only substantive thing that postcolonialism has to offer is its critique that Western states need to acknowledge the differing opinions of the global South on issues of globalization. But postcolonial scholars need to let the West do something with that knowledge. In order for any problems associated with globalization and the West/South relationship to be worked out, the West is going to have to be the main driver. The West has the power to influence change so postcolonialist need to not only leave room for the acknowledgement of the Other but also leave room for action on the part of the West. It does not make much sense to demand change but at the same time criticize the actions of the actors with the power to bring about such change as being part of an unacceptable conspiracy.

Thursday, October 18

In Himadeep Muppidi's chapter, "Colonial and Postcolonial Global Governance," the author uses examples from a post-9/11 world to show that Imperialism, Liberalism, and Realism lack any kind of global ethic and silence the weakest states in an attempt to hold up the most powerful ones. He points to two different writers (Ikenberry and Mallaby) who advance this line of thinking by both supporting and rejecting neo-imperialism. Mallaby advocates for "orderly" countries to colonize the "disorderly" nations which upset the order found in democratic states. Ikenberry takes the opposite view, but does not categorically reject Mallaby's thoughts. Rather, he argues for a return to Liberalism or Realism. Muppidi counters by pointing out that even Liberalism and Realism do not reject imperialism, and that a return to such policies would only serve to bring us back to where we are now. Even international institutions are tainted by the overwhelming power that the United States and Great Britain hold in world affairs; the World Bank has repeatedly been criticized for predatory lending and favoring American contractors. To Muppidi, a world in which there is a governing power and governed states lacks ethics.


The example of Madeline Albright's approval of economic sanctions that kill over half a million children in Iraq is disgusting to Muppidi. This power should not be exercised by any one state in his eyes.

So the question becomes, if we as as a country should not use military, economic, or international pressure to force pariah states, what can we do? The past is in the past, and in truth the United States is not to blame for problems in postcolonial states nearly as much as Great Britain is. The Balfour Declaration helped to carve up the Middle East entirely wrong, which led to almost all of the conflicts we see today in Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Iran. African border disputes or civil wars? The United States wasn't at the Berlin Conference to carve up Africa.

The point here is that the United States is today paying for the mistakes and short-sightedness of its European predecessors. Yes, the US does play a different, neoimperial role in world affairs, but its effect is not nearly as damaging as what European nations did to essentially create this Third World we talk so much about.

If military, economic, and international pressures should not be used to keep rogue states in check, Muppidi offers no feasible suggestion for how to deal with these states, and in today's world where the squeaky wheel gets the media attention, it is easier than ever for impoverished nations to reach out to one another in protest of the west.

Article "Who Speaks for "Indian" Pasts? (Christine Porcaro, Week 8, Substantive)

In the article by Dipesh Chakrabarty what I found interesting was the the excerpt from the Bengali text on women's education from 1877. The view of the "Indian" household to the "European" household showed how the Indians viewed the Europeans power. When India was colonized by the British the idea of power, freedom, right, wrong , smart, stupid, wealthy, poor...was all constructed through the eyes of the colonizer and then forced upon the people who were colonized. In this excerpt the "Indian" household is looked at in such a negative light while the "European" house is regarded as the ideal. This reading really got me thinking about the relations between first and third world countries(these names in themselves help show what the article was saying). In first world countries such as the US, when regarding third world countries all that is looked at is how they have failed to reach the same status as first world countries. What is ignored a lot of the time is the effects that these countries have been shaped by the former colonial powers that exploited the land, people and power of these now third world countries. Post-colonialism is very interesting to me because we seem to forget that yes colonialism in its original sense is over but its affects seem to be of lasting impact on the international system.

Roy and World Peace

Himadeep Muppidi’s reference Arundhati Roy’s critique of a nuclear India struck me. Roy’s take on the issue of nuclear proliferation in postcolonial countries is fascinating. Roy alleges that nuclear proliferation by India is the ultimate gesture of compliance and conformity with colonial powers. With nuclear proliferation, India has sacrificed the key to its freedom, the ability to articulate a new noncolonial view of the global. For Roy, colonial powers are not free but very much locked into their fate as members of a global that has exploited humanity and plundered nations, and that is incapable of turning back. Colonies on the other hand have a freedom that their colonial masters do not. They have the freedom to reverse this trend by their choices and actions, something that India failed to take advantage of, its moral position. This is an interesting concept and would explain why prospects for world peace are so small. Colonial powers are already at a place in their moral development from which they cannot return. Colonies are at a place in their moral development where they can decide to break from the mold and pursue a new global order based on morals and peace. However, these colonial states are in pursuit of what the colonial powers have as evidenced by India’s nuclear proliferation, they are colonizing themselves better than any state could colonize them. Prospects for world peace are damaged therefore because the states that can aid work towards a change in the global do not and the only option left, as Roy suggests, is secession. Under this framework, it is the individual alone who can save the global. Individuals must show the initiative to fight a fight that they know they will lose against the moral end-state of colonization. Thus it is the use of IR in everyday practice that offers the best opportunity to find a way to achieve world peace because the potential for peace lies with individuals.

Himadeep Muppidi - Global Governance week 7 substantive

Muppidi argues that post colonialism advances global governance on a level of mutual concepts of power, and to some degree integration. He notes that the greatest threat to post colonialist global governance is large scale risk such as terrorism.

If the world accepts terrorism as a mutual threat, does that qualify as a "common enemy?" The recognition of state powers having a common enemy could be seen as a likely sign of state integration. If they believe they have a common enemy, they are more likely to sacrifice for the group.

Though not triggered by terrorism, this sort of group work can be seen in the European Union. Common goals, with less emphasis on nationalism could be the regionalization trend of the future. I do not see this as possible in the United States, a country who believes their self interests overshadow all others, but I would not be suprised if other forms of cooperation take form due to the increase world threat.

Constructivism and US Action

For constructivists it is the identity of actors and their actions as a result of those identities that is key to interpreting events in IR. The constructivist analysis can be used to explain the actions and inactions of the United States today. The United States invaded Afghanistan because the ‘other,’ al-Qaeda attacked us and as a result our identity changed causing the US to perceive itself as the victim who must defend ‘freedom and democracy.’ This partially led to the invasion of Iraq as well because we perceived ourselves again as protectors and defenders of ‘freedom and democracy’ and Iraq was the new threat to those things. The other this time was a dictatorship that we thought wanted to attain WMD and use them against us or our interests. However things have changed in both Afghanistan and Iraq because events have once again changed our identities. In Afghanistan things were going well for a while after the invasion, then came time to make an important decision: Do we allow Afghanistan to continue to produce opium as a source of income? With upwards of 40% of the population of Afghanistan directly dependant on the trade of opium this was an important question. In the end we choose to stop Afghanistan from participating in the opium trade because of our identity as a state that considers drugs to be bad and has made them illegal. Well what happens when over a third of the population of a country losses its livelihood? That third gets angry and starts supporting forces in Afghanistan that are waging war with US forces to get them to leave so that they can have their source of income back. The US is also facing though times in Iraq because of a population back home that is in the majority against the war. I believe that this can also be attributed to our identity because Americans do not see war for the US as meaning long-term occupation. Americans think of war for the US as quick, decisive, and broadly supported. Iraq today does not fit the American conception of acceptable war and is therefore under sharp criticism from the majority of Americans. America’s identity may be changing once again as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan as evidenced by our stance towards Darfur. An intervention in Darfur would look something like this: the implementation of a no-fly zone and the insertion of ground forces to stop sectarian and ethnic violence. That is exactly what we are doing right now in Iraq. To help Darfur we would be leaving Iraq to do the same thing on a different continent. I think that because of our trouble with Iraq and Afghanistan the United States will not commit to ending violence in Darfur because that type of action has already proven to be unpopular with Americans. Our identity may be changing to that of a country that will not be likely to see itself as the leader in future actions to quell sectarian conflict in foreign countries and install stable governments there.

Do we really need to be able to predict war? (Kelsey Hunter, Week 6 Dialog)

The other day in our brief discussions with smaller groups, we talked about the idea that Constructivism doesn't try to predict what will happen in the world system. Instead Constructivists "forecast." From my Economics of Business Decision Making class I've learned that forecasting is wrought with unpredictability and uncertainty. Our small group brought up the idea that Constructivists were "copping out" by claiming that they can't predict anything in the international system. But I disagree, the other theories predict that there will either be war or peace based on the way states behave in either the Realist or Liberal view of the world. What I want to know though is do we really need to predict war or peace, and is this actually realistic? I would agree with the Constructivists that trying to predict anything with any certainty is unrealistic because the world is ever changing and our actions and our interactions with other states can change at a moments notice. For example, on September 10th, 2001, would anyone really be able to predict with certainty that the U.S. and many other states around the world would be engaged in a war on terror and specifically a war in Afghanistan? Perhaps there were certain signs that U.S. foreign policy was becoming more prone to war, but the actions of a group of individuals (not a state) significantly altered the course of U.S. foreign policy in a single day. So, I feel that it is unrealistic to try to predict war, because the world is an uncertain place. Should we predict war or peace is another story, but my answer there would be no, we don't need to predict war or peace. Predicting war is so pessimistic and creates fear among states- ie. the Cold War. Predicting peace creates false hopes and doesn't take into account the realities of uncertainty, ie. the League of Nations. The reason I like the Constructivist point of view is that it seems more practical to look at the interactions of states and the actions of states and maybe forecast with uncertainty than predict with certainty.

Constructivism in the "real world"

Alexander's article stated that once formed, "any social system confronts each of its members as an objective social fact that reinforces certain behaviors and discourages others."
This sort of social interaction is well shown in the movie "Mean Girls." Mean Girls is based of the social heirarchy of a high school in middle America. If realism was correct, every member of the school would be at war with one another, and social groups would be formed based off the idea that students need one another for social survival. From the constructivist viewpoint, the only characters who are actually in conflict within the movie are those who have a historical background of conflict, such as Regina and Janice. Janice and Regina both met Cady, and neither immediatly approaches her as a threat until their interactions justify so. Cady's interactions with Regina discourages her to be the same person she entered the school as and encourages behavior that Regina finds appealing, such as dressing alike or saying certain phrases. Cady as a character is constantly changing based upon her reactions with her "allies."

Constructivist

Constructivism seems much more complete that the other theories. It takes into account historical background, and the idea that as circumstances and relationships change, actions and systems will also change. It explains why not all states are agressive, and not all states are looking to destroy the world. Constructivism is the first theory so far that adjusts for the unique relationships that certain countries have with one another. There are some points in Constructivism, however, that don't fully explain why states act the way they do in every circumstance. For instance, on pg. 25 of the Alexander article, he states that states can affor to rely on outside recognition for security and less on nationalist ways, such as military power. Though the author addresses Hitler and Napoleon as exceptions, he doesn't explain the extreme individuals who are in power. State relationships in the past may not be relavent in the situation where a new leader takes power who disagreed with the practices in the past. When extremists take power, do states assume the worst as realists argues or treat the state the same as they always have, as constructivists argue?

For some reason last week the blog wouldn't let me log in (talked to Professor Pervez earlier) so this post is for last week, as well as the next post.

Constructivism Explains More Than States' Actions

Wendt’s “Anarchy is what States Make of It” presents a unique new way to consider IR theory. Wendt’s constructivist claim is that states behave the way they do because of themselves, not because of the nature of the system. For example states only act, as realists maintain, out of survival-interest because that just what sates choose to do. Wendt’s analysis says that states can stop behaving in this way if they would just stop acting in the interest of their own security in all their actions. This leads then to the questioning of our current perceptions of IR theory. Scholars often discuss the rise and fall of certain IR theories, and it is this rise and fall in which constructivism finds it niche. Theories rise and fall as the actions of states that reflect those theories rise and fall. The behavior of states is not an exact science and as such is always changing, along with theories that explain those actions. If the system was always the same and states were the result of it, it would not make sense that the nature of the system would remain constant while explanations of it gained or lost popularity. In the world of science gravity is gravity, new theories about what gravity is do not rise and fall, that does not make sense. The same goes for IR, the system changes with the action preferences of states and other actors and these actions run parallel to IR theories that explain those actions. Realism gains strength in a hostile, isolationist world while functionalism gains popularity in a world in which state actions reflect a premium placed on international institutions. To me it seems that constructivism serves a greater purpose than as just another IR theory. Constructivism helps to explain why theories exist and can aid in the explanation and prediction of not only states’ actions, but the rise and fall of IR theories.