First post, due September 20: Explain what drew you to the course and share your first impressions of the subject matter. You may discuss course reading materials, lecture themes, and whatever course related issues you wish. You might also discuss an item in the news that you think illuminates aspects of the course.

Although the study of International Relations has always held a fascination for me, I was skeptical about the ‘theorization’ and ‘science’ of International Relations. I wondered how I should approach the discipline of International Relations and whether I should be theorize international relations with a clear set of logics. Even after declaring a major in IR, I had a doubt on how ‘practical’ studying the ‘theoretical’ aspects of IR would be. As discussed in the first lecture, IR fails to satisfy the Kuhnian definition of ‘normal science (i.e. a discipline that accompanies a core paradigm),’ so why should I study IR theories, how should I study them and what should I study IR for?

It was this very sense of doubt and skepticism that drew me into the subject matter and the course. Although the doubt still resides in me, the first two lectures introduced Mansbach and Ferguson’s “The Elusive Quest,” which points to the plurality of IR theories and counters the idea of IR as normal science. According to Mansbach and Ferguson, the theoretical discourse regarding world politics is not meant to reach consensus. A striking contemporary example that I can find is the China Threat Theory: a discourse on the recent rise of China. The realist is concerned with the buildup of Chinese military which might challenge the U.S. hegemony system and thus increase instability, whereas the liberalist interpretation would focus on increasing economic interdependence. Different interpretations surrounding China’s recent political, military and economic rise, exist, which I think illuminates the plurality of theories and emphasizes the need to examine the theories.

The implication is that theories can have practical impacts on the real world. Each theory has its own area of focus, because, as Smith argues, a theory is correlated with specific interests and values. Even when it comes to the interpretation on China’s rise, the realist concern China’s military expansion would provoke U.S. response to balance the world stability, just as the U.S military bolstered their military in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Singapore, South Korea, and Australia (Keck). On the other hand, the liberalism-based interpretation would encourage the strengthening of international economic ties in pursuit of mitigating conflicts. Therefore, it is important to examine and evaluate the emergence, development and current status of IR theories in world politics. Moreover, I realized that, in examining the theoretical inquiries, it is important to acknowledge the plurality of theories, have an understanding of epistemology, and evaluate real life events with a holistic view, rather than from a one-sided view. For example, in interpreting China’s rise, the two classical theories become practical when “analyzed in combination with each other—not in opposition to each other (Hudda).” Such implications make me look forward to having ‘meta-theoretical’ discussions of the subject matter, familiarize myself with classical and modern IR theories, and solve my curiosity.