Pre-Class Reflection
Reflecting back on this class, I have learned a lot about what school of thought I fall into, what I think of the international system and its varied actors, and my opinions on numerous topics regarding international relations. Though I don't think I came to any concrete and definite answer on whether I am a realist, liberal or constructivist, I do have a better understanding of what I lean towards depending on the topic at hand. This class has given me the foundational knowledge to be able to critically think about several concepts like fundamental change, ideas v. interests, global public sphere, and how these can all affect the international system.
The most interesting topic to me was fundamental change. I have yet to come up with a conclusive view on whether fundamental change of the international system is possible. Over the course of this class, I have argued for the realist perspective that it is not possible. However, there have been some points made in class that I agree with. For example, when ideas were brought up. A shift in ideas could bring about a fundamental change. We've seen this, to an extent, with human rights movements. I still hold on to the fact that this hasn't changed the international system, not every state abides or follows along with the movement. Could this change in the future? Possibly. This is where I get wishy washy on whether I believe that fundamental change can happen, and what would bring about fundamental change. If I was pressured into an answer though, I would say that it would have to be something so drastic that would create a new system completely.
The other topic that I really got into was ideas v. interests. Here I found that I agreed more with the liberal view that ideas shape interests, instead of seeing them as two separate things. There were times in discussions had in class, that I leaned more towards thinking that in some cases interests overruled and led to certain actions. What I've learned the most in this class is that there is no black and white answer, instead we need to understand every situation case by case. This was evident every time we went over the 2x2's and some examples bled from one box to the other. However, for the most part, I do believe that ideas underline interests which inevitably affect actions.
Lastly, I thought that the global public sphere was something to look out for in the future. I do not believe that such a thing exists yet. With advancements in technology and the growth in accessibility of information, it is a possibility. Borders are no longer impermeable and information is generally easily attained. Whether countries will act based on the what's brought up in a global public sphere is unknown. We've discussed many times that countries like to keep their sovereignty, and I believe a global public sphere could challenge that sovereignty.
As you can see, I'm all over the place in terms of school of thought. But, I have learned a lot and been able to form my own opinions based on those different schools of thought. I would call that a success!
The most interesting topic to me was fundamental change. I have yet to come up with a conclusive view on whether fundamental change of the international system is possible. Over the course of this class, I have argued for the realist perspective that it is not possible. However, there have been some points made in class that I agree with. For example, when ideas were brought up. A shift in ideas could bring about a fundamental change. We've seen this, to an extent, with human rights movements. I still hold on to the fact that this hasn't changed the international system, not every state abides or follows along with the movement. Could this change in the future? Possibly. This is where I get wishy washy on whether I believe that fundamental change can happen, and what would bring about fundamental change. If I was pressured into an answer though, I would say that it would have to be something so drastic that would create a new system completely.
The other topic that I really got into was ideas v. interests. Here I found that I agreed more with the liberal view that ideas shape interests, instead of seeing them as two separate things. There were times in discussions had in class, that I leaned more towards thinking that in some cases interests overruled and led to certain actions. What I've learned the most in this class is that there is no black and white answer, instead we need to understand every situation case by case. This was evident every time we went over the 2x2's and some examples bled from one box to the other. However, for the most part, I do believe that ideas underline interests which inevitably affect actions.
Lastly, I thought that the global public sphere was something to look out for in the future. I do not believe that such a thing exists yet. With advancements in technology and the growth in accessibility of information, it is a possibility. Borders are no longer impermeable and information is generally easily attained. Whether countries will act based on the what's brought up in a global public sphere is unknown. We've discussed many times that countries like to keep their sovereignty, and I believe a global public sphere could challenge that sovereignty.
As you can see, I'm all over the place in terms of school of thought. But, I have learned a lot and been able to form my own opinions based on those different schools of thought. I would call that a success!
The fundamental change debate was my favorite topic of this class as well. I started with a more liberal view and assumed that of course change was possible, but then I was assigned to the "Con" side of the debate and I changed my tune to think it's not possible. Now it depends on the day where I'm at!
ReplyDeleteYou say in the post that you don't think fundamental change has happened yet. You hint that it is possible, but would take something drastic. Then in your last paragraph you talk about advances in technology and the fact that borders are no longer impermeable and info is much easier to obtain. Could these two developments be evidence that fundamental change may actually be underway right now?
The traditional international system, in my eyes, is constructed of impermeable borders. States control what goes on inside their own borders and what leaves their borders. As you point out, technology has changed this and made the system a lot more interconnected. I don't think it is possible for the system to revert back to the old way - despite all the current efforts underway. Would this not be considered a fundamental change?
I do think some significant shift is taking place. I'm not sure that it constitutes as fundamental change in the international system yet. However, it is a significant enough change because like you said we can't revert back to the old way of doing things and impermeability is no longer that feasible.
Delete