Reflections

Over a four-day period our class debated the potential for fundamental change in the international sphere in the form of a slow-motion exchange of written rebuttals. I gained a renewed appreciation for my decision to avoid law school. On a more serious note, the exercise was a valuable summation of the concepts we’ve covered to date. As we’ve seen in class all along, from Hobbes’ chapters dedicated to explaining his precise personal interpretations of terminology, to confusions in class, expressing your definition of a word can improve the clarity of your argument, but even change it.

                Personally, the time spent reflecting on perspective with which I don’t necessarily agree was highly educational. I challenged my own viewpoints, which is always healthy, and was able to consider why someone else would see things differently. This class is dedicated to the theory behind international relations. Understanding theory is deeply necessary to operate in any kind of related career, but those careers are also going to be full of people who don’t see the world the exact same way. Learning to step back and take into account the panoply of differences that underly a competing worldview is key to working out compromises. As Henry Clay, or Larry David, or whomever the internet is attributing to these days said, “a good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied.”

                You must know your ‘enemy’ and have considered their perspective in order to effectively negotiate for an agreement or contract that falls as much in your favor as possible. Debating as a group presented challenges of its own, as much thought had to be given to groupmates’ views. Assigned to argue that fundamental change is not in fact possible, most of us were arguing against our own beliefs. Looking for holes we could poke in the pro team’s arguments and trying to preempt their return fire forced us to think still more critically about the readings and concepts covered so far in the class, and solidify our individual perspectives, whether we were arguing for or against them at the time.

                Personally, I think that fundamental change is possible. With that statement though, I have conditions. I don’t think that continuing as we are now will trigger any kind of cataclysmic change within our lifetimes. I, of course, could be very wrong, that’s half the fun of international relations. I suspect that, as we discussed in class, a dramatic climactic event, or the slow, but steady churn of climate change could eventually upend the system as we know it.

                The groups also went back and forth on war, or the lack thereof as an indicator of fundamental change. I don’t see this as significant enough to count as ‘fundamental’. I do think it is, as Waltz has noted, the beginning of a shift in power dynamics. ‘Great Powers’, or for this argument, nations with nuclear weaponry, can ill-afford to charge in to a fight, nukes blazing, without potentially causing one of those charming climatic catastrophes. In recent years, we’ve instead seen a rising number of proxy wars, military, trade, and otherwise. While I don’t see this as a fundamental change, I do believe it is our new reality.