International Relations is one of the only disciplines which has an ever evolving curriculum. From one day to the next the way IR classes are taught can be completely different. This is due to the ever-changing nature of human politics and the lack of consensus on the epistemology of the discipline.

in today’s class we discussed Archimedes law of the lever. in which he famously bragged that given a long enough lever and a fulcrum to place it on he’d be able to move the world. Dr. Crawford used this as a way to explain the concept of the different lenses that one could study IR through and how these lenses often distort reality. the three main lenses are realism, liberalism and Marxism. however, within (and outside) those three there are many different epistemologies. these lenses have fluctuated in popularity over the course of modern history. for example, off-springs of Liberalism have become extremely popular, while Realism –which was extremely popular during the cold war– has now taken a backseat, and Marxism seems to have died off completely. IR is also a subject that deals with intangibles, where the foundations of the discipline and how one sees the world is fragmented into different ideologies.

The volatility of IR is something that drew me to the discipline although i didn’t realize this was the case until it was talked about in an earlier lecture. IR is one of the only disciplines where the curriculum evolves alongside the happenings of the world. An event such as 9/11 or the end of the cold war can completely change what is taught.  Such events mark huge changes in national and foreign policy in countries, and as such what is taught also changes, as well as the employment opportunities that arise because of IR. The necessity for experts on foreign states is constantly changing from experts on the USSR to the necessity of experts on china. the constant evolution of the discipline, allows it to more easily welcome new perspectives. however, this has caused a massive lack of consensus on almost anything. giving the discipline little direction, which depending on who you ask can be a good or bad thing. In my opinion, i would fall somewhere in the middle. that is, if one views things from a single lens then he will not see the full picture (reality). on the other hand if one introduces too many new lenses then reality will be distorted.