And so here we are at the final blog, taking stock of the
process of the last 15 weeks. To sum it
up, this class was a look at explaining and exploring the question “How does
the international world work?”
First, I’ve learned that international relations scholars in
no way agree on the way the world works. That is both reassuring and
depressing; reassuring in that it proves the world is a complex and at times contradictory
place, with multiple actors acting in a variety of ways for a multitude of
reasons; depressing because if the best minds of this field can’t figure it
out, what hope is there for the people actually running things. It’s also
depressing because the level of confusion allows those with a seductive message
to confuse the ignorant and advance an agenda that isn’t necessarily beneficial
to their countries or the world.
I’ve also learned (or rather confirmed) that using
scientific methods to try to explain human political behaviors can be something
of a fool’s errand. There is no way to implement a control, the heart of all
scientific experiments, with all conditions strictly monitored to ensure the
experiment’s results are accurate and repeatable. You’d probably be hard
pressed to find a group of humans willing to live for years on end under the
strict conditions required to ensure accurate results. Assuming that all people act rationally and in
their own best interest is folly. And who determines what is “rational”? What
makes sense to me might be unheard of for another culture.
Finally, I’ve learned the value of definitions. It’s
incredibly difficult to have a successful discussion when the parties involved
can’t even agree on what it is they are discussing. This might explain why so
many IR scholars don’t agree on why the world works as it does (on a
theoretical level). They can’t agree on how the world works and what are the
key drivers of behavior in a world where some individuals are operating on a
different plane of needs fulfillment than others. When this is coupled with cultural differences,
we wind up with a very complex planet.
Glad to have been in class with you, Scott. For sure we've seen many examples of were a definition such as neo-liberalism, regionalism, and private authority take on different meanings through out time. Even when scholars agree on the origins of the concept and where it should be applicable, a new culture paradigm might translate to new views on the term. There will always be an interplay between the two and a race to update discursive language.
ReplyDeleteHope to see you in future classes as well. Good Luck.
It is a strange task to try to apply hard science to what is in the end a social interaction. But I have found myself thinking about the 2x2 as I approach situations with my colleagues or the particular bureaucracy that I work in. I don't always get the desired outcome but it has been an interesting tool
ReplyDeleteIf this is what you have ended up with, then I feel very satisfied that the course as a whole did its job. :)
ReplyDelete