Hello world!
Back in June, when I was taking part in my course planning for my fourth year at UBC, I was intrigued when I first saw this course description online. I have yet to take a true theory class at UBC. Back in first year, I was fortunate to take one at the University of Victoria, but I have wanted the chance to take one here. Additionally, being an IR student it only seemed fitting to partake in a class about IR theories.
I would say that my knowledge on theories, particularly IR theories is not vast, but I did take POLI 260 and it has by far been my favourite course at UBC. I know the basic key intellects; such as Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke, and I have a fair understanding of ideologies; such as liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism, but I will admit that I have a lot to learn. However, I have found this side of Political Science to be quite fascinating. I would say to date my favourite element of Political Science I have learnt about is game theories; such as the collective action problem, and the prisoners dilemma. However, I am excited to be learning more about a portion of this discipline that I currently lack knowledge in.
To be completely honest, my first impressions thus far of the course is that there is a large amount of large vocabulary I am unfamiliar with! English has never been my strongest subject, and therefore, I am not surprised by my lack of understanding. I believe that the dictionary will become my closest friend in this course, but this sparked my interest because this course will challenge me academically. Being challenged is one of the many reasons why I love university and I know that I will greatly benefit from this course.
In terms of content thus far, I found the readings for this week to be quite interesting. Both chapters in the textbook where intriguing and helped elaborate on the material we learnt in class this afternoon. I found that I preferred chapter 3 on Structural Realism only because there was more terminology that I recognized. For example, with the analysis of the four questions; specifically with the question “why do states want power?” reminded me of my Poli 260 course. I loved learning about why Great Powers feared each other, and how they not only have military power but latent power. Latent power is quite fascinating as this has been critical for China’s growth into a Great Power in recent years.
I would say that what I am most excited to learn about our case studies. I know that this is a course on theory, but I have found that I learn the best with real world examples. For example, when I took Poli 360, we were learning about the different reasons state engaged in war, and each one had a real world example. This made the content of the class seem more relevant and I was more engaged. Nevertheless, I look forward to this course and expanding my knowledge on IR theories.
Jess
Hi Jess. Thanks for sharing these reflections. IR theorists do indeed tend to get preoccupied with abstractions and debates that remove them from policy relevant real word problems or, in the case of realism (paradoxically) offer only caricatures of the “real” world, are better at describing than solving problems, and tend to offer little precise guidance. One thing to keep in mind, perhaps, is that “our” case studies (e.g. in this course) are the theories that have come to populate its discourses, many of which can seem detached from the “real” world. Then again, defining what is real is one of the biggest challenges we face! Thanks again for a very thoughtful, honest post.