Hello and First Impressions:

Back in First Year I was debating whether to major in Psychology or Political Science. I remember sitting through my first lecture of POLI 100 and instantly deciding that this would be my major.

One thing that I have noticed about the field of International Relations is the amount of jargon involved, almost as if learning a new language is required to understand IR theory.  I took POLI 260 in my second year, and already I can notice a few differences between both classes. First, 260 helped set a foundational understanding of the various terms like realism, constructivism, international actors, and epistemology. However, 260 focused more on case studies and the application of basic theory into real life incidents. Taking this class right after the 2016 election, this made the course material more applicable to real life than any I have ever experienced at UBC.

With 367B, I knew a theory-focused class would be heavier on the readings. I find the textbooks chapters to be very “jargony”, which makes the content interesting, giving so much more information to unpack.   I had trouble understanding the concept that IR is not a proper science. I think it is fascinating that this debate in IR exists. I think that this contention within the field is healthy discourse, necessary to unpack world issues. The field of IR is not rooted in any basis of law. I think this is particularly difficult in a department where we investigate the effects of the political economy on human nature, in real time. This was represented in the class we had on September 11^th, where we learnt that IR scholars have had a constant debate of “when the field began”. It is interesting how moments in human history have pushed the field to completely adapt its perspectives, and exacerbate the differences between IR scholars.

So far, my favorite reading has been Chapter 3, and the differences between offensive and defensive realist. It is intriguing how even in the subfield of realists, there are even more divergent ideas and theories. This difference really validates the thinking that “one mans defense is another man’s offence”. In addition, it will be fascinating to observe the shift in regional power of Asia, especially given the US’s disengagement from foreign affairs.  What I especially enjoy from the readings is the case studies, particularly the one of China. Growing up in Hong Kong, we hear so much about expanding Chinese power not just in the South China Sea, but also in our domestic affairs. Looking forward, I hope to study Chinese expansionism further, analyzing the phenomenon through different scholarly lenses and perspectives.

Owen