Hello! I am going to share my initial interest in POLI367B, the International Relations theories course and my first impressions. I am in my last year of studies, doing a combined major in Political Science and Philosophy with a minor in International Relations. I greatly enjoyed taking more theory-based courses such as POLI240 and PHIL335 in my past years at UBC. I remember a few specific instances where I have been asked with a hint of ridicule what kind of job I hope to find by studying such abstract and intangible subjects. However, the more I learn about these ‘impractical’ pursuits I become more convinced that there are indispensable values to be had from theoretical and philosophical discourses. Although I could have chosen other classes from the list of approved courses in the IR department, I wanted to take this course because I think theories and conceptualizations are a necessary part of unpacking and understanding the complexities of the world that we cannot do without. I think theories and practice ought not to be thought of as two very distinct things, as both reflect how we understand and navigate through the world.

So far, I am really enjoying the course and feeling excited to learn more as the course progresses. I found the readings and the lectures we had on the great debates in IR and how the discipline has developed historically to become not a ‘normal’ science to be quite fascinating because these disagreements show that the field is finally becoming self-critical and aware of its own purpose of existence. I especially like the approach of the textbook that presents the competing IR theories and schools of thought as lenses through which we can see the world where with each lens we focus on a different aspect and learn something different about the international system. Theories, in this sense, can almost be equated to different parts of a puzzle that when taken as a whole makes up and illuminates different aspects of the complex picture of the world we are trying to understand.

It seems the tensions between the natural sciences and the social sciences are still at large today, but I think there are fundamental differences that raise questions about expecting the same standard of inquiry for both. I took PHIL375, a Philosophy of Literature course which really resonated with me that explored the hermeneutic tradition that emerged first as a literary interpretation approach, went through several attempts to be remolded into a ‘legitimate’ science in unison with the positivist current, and then later developed as a parallel approach in opposition to the scientific tradition. I think the hermeneutic or interpretative method correctly calls out the tendency for science to be blindly emulated and invade all aspects of inquiry into one rigid frame of knowing, claiming a monopoly on legitimacy and truth forgoing its critical commitment to the possibility that all knowledge claims may be fallible. This religious prioritizing of rationality or reason and the scientific method above all else defeats the very Enlightenment spirit of critical thought that it vows to uphold.

I am looking forward to learning more about each of the different theories and understand the deeper implications of favouring one theory over another. Learning case studies and current affairs in relation to the theories may be a useful way to go about this. I think I still have lots to learn and I am grateful to have this opportunity to pursue the subjects of my interests.

-Degi Bolormunkh