Ever since I took my first political science course, I remember being completely fascinated by political theory (especially IR theory) and all of the different disciplines it encompasses. While studying subjects like foreign policy and international law is undoubtedly very important to International Relations, I have personally always felt that studying International Relations theory was essential to my own understanding of world politics and how I perceive the world. Rather than analyzing more “objective” and palpable matters such as trade deals and laws, political theory provides a more abstract multi-disciplinary approach to world politics – on a psychological level, political theory is influenced, for example, by the debate regarding human nature (whether it is inherently good or evil). Whether one shares the Hobbesian or Rousseauian view of human nature will certainly influence one’s assumptions about the world, and thus, by extension, the theory they use to explain the world. Likewise, political theory draws on the disciplines of Sociology, Anthropology, and History (in connection to the psychology of human behaviour) to explain how culture and society socially condition individuals to think a certain way and have particular assumptions about the world (which will have a large impact on the lenses through which one sees world politics and the way they engage with politics). Lastly, International Relations theory also borrows concepts and ideas from Philosophy to discuss epistemological concerns, such as what constitutes “reality” and whether or not we can analyze the world while “being outside of it”. In light of this great diversity of knowledge in IR discourse, I have always been extremely interested in the multifaceted nature of International Relations Theory and the basis it provides for a more thorough understanding of politics. By addressing core issues (e.g. human nature and assumptions about reality) that are not normally considered in everyday politics, I find that studying International Relations Theory is a very useful tool to not only analyze the events that happen every day in world politics (such as the decisions undertaken by global actors), but also to understand my own assumptions about the world.

Although I believe that taking this class and learning more about International Relations Theory will improve my ability to analyze world politics, I am still extremely surprised (and also skeptical) by the contentious nature of the field that we have seen in class so far and whether it is beneficial to politics. While discussing epistemological matters like the nature of reality and whether IR ought to be considered a “discipline” and a “science” are all valid topics of discussion, do they really matter for world politics? Are the subjects being discussed in academia going to have any significant impact on real life events like climate change and poverty? Are the discussions emerging from the theoretical pluralism within the field a privilege of wealthier countries and academics?  What are the real-life implications of the lack of consensus among scholars and decision-makers on politics (if any) and how do those translate into world politics? Even though I am skeptical of the theoretical pluralism in the field and how it actually translates into the real world, I am looking forward to learning more about the several different theories to see how they translate into the “real world” and which one I find more appealing.

By: Henrique Fernandes: 51392165

I will be the first to admit that I signed up for POLI 367 with no expectations and even less of an idea of what I was going to be studying. As someone going on the fifth year of their four-year plan, any course that got me closer to graduation was an attractive option. While admittedly less vague than “Topics in Comparative Politics”, the title of “International Relations Theory in the International System” left me with a few questions – all mainly revolving around “which theory”? After POLI 260 in my second year, POLI100 in my fourth, and a mix of 300 and 100 level POLI courses sprinkled in between, it is safe to say that my path to this course was somewhat unconventional.

Yet none of that has mattered so far. Within the first three weeks, Dr. Crawford had set the ground for what is poised to be an engaging semester. Explaining the multiple “births” of IR following both World Wars, as well as the slow shifting in dominant ideologies in the wake of the Cold War and, more recently, the 9/11 attacks. From the decline to Marxism to the shift away from traditional realism, IR has been almost constantly evolving.

However, one must wonder when the next shift is coming. Today’s lecture, centered on the framing and leveraging of different theories against each opens the door to some thought. Will we see a departure from positivistic IR (prominent at least at UBC), or perhaps a relapse to an updated version of older frames.

By: Alfonso García

As someone who has always enjoyed reading about history and the various conflicts and events that have occurred throughout it, I was always curious to understand the reasoning behind the patterns of behaviours of states that would explain why certain issues have developed the way they did across time. Due to the fact that so many of these “conflicts” turned out to be wars waged by states, my main point of interest in understanding international relations has always aligned mostly with finding out the importance that these state actors have in the international system. After taking POLI 260 and having read John Mearsheimer’s “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics”, I started thinking of myself as more of a realist seeing as most of the information that I was learning through history and realist writings all pointed towards the “state” as being the most important actor at the center of discussion. Although, this made sense to me as a result of the lack of mention in history books about the influence that other actors may have had in international affairs, I was aware that these existed and that there were theories that gave these actors greater importance and relevance to world politics.

Registering in a course that seems to offer information about these other theories from such an even or “neutral” perspective (in the sense that no one theory seems to be given greater importance than any other)  which I find quite refreshing as I am hoping to broaden my understanding of IR with a less biased outlook. I believe that the discussion of the wide-ranging types of IR theories in this course and the emphasis being given on the basic differences of their most basic assumptions about the world is a great way of showcasing that IR theory is not like any “science” that we might be familiar with due to the inherently large presence of subjectivity in the way that academics in this field view the world. Even though this at times gives me the sensation that I may never fully understand why international actors behave the way they do, learning about all these unique “lenses” through which to view the world gives me the tools to view the world in various ways and ultimately enable me to take more things into consideration and ultimately allow me to have a more educated understanding of global developments.

I look forward to learning about the assortment of schools of IR and their respective theories so that perhaps, once I have more knowledge about these different outlooks I may find one (or more) that I can more closely agree with and from there be able to develop my own views and interpretations about current events and as well as events from the past.

Sofia Shamsunahar’s Blog Post: First Impression of Class

https://blogs.ubc.ca/sofandinternationaltheory/

Four people have recommended that I drop this class. When I asked them why, they simply responded with “because it’s a theory class”. Several of my peers seem to avoid theory classes as they have the perception that they are either too difficult or too dull. While I agree that it may not sound as exciting as “Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control” or “The Politics of Terrorism”, I think that learning about theories that have shaped and continue to influence the way we perceive certain issues is fascinating in its own right. I took a theory course this summer which was labelled “Canadian Political Ideas”. In this course, we delved into and compared the existing theories on topics such as identity, multiculturalism, etc. These are topics that we Canadians talk about quite regularly, without understanding where or how our views have been developed. This course helped me understand the various interpretations of Canadian identity, how they emerged, and allowed me to choose which theory worked best for me. This is what I hope to take away from International Relations Theory.

In the first few classes, Dr. Crawford talked about the pluralism that now exists in the field of international relations, and how this is a drastic change from the claim to superiority that realism held several decades ago. While I did find it intimidating at first, I now think that it makes IR more interesting than ever. The truth is that there are numerous issues that we can focus on, and what may be more important to one person may not matter as much to another. Initially, I was inclined to think that I will likely end up adopting a mix of two or more of the different IR theories, as I think that structural realism, liberalism, and feminism all make some good points. However, Smith discusses that this is impossible, as “the various theories are not like parts of a jigsaw that can be neatly combined together with each explaining one part of international relations. Rather I think that the theories in this book are like different coloured lenses: if you put one of them in front of your eyes, you will see things differently” (p. 11). I am curious to see where I’ll stand at the end of the course.

We’re only two weeks into the course, and while I am still intimidated by the number of theories that we will be learning about, I think I made the right decision in keeping the course. (…for now?)

As a fifth year political science student (will graduate soon I promise) i’ve dealt with a variety of subfields in the web of international relations (IR) including courses dealing in IPE, environmental degradation, international violence, development & growth, etc.  However, since taking Poli 260, I haven’t had courses that I felt truly encapsulated a holistic view of IR that brings these areas together. Accordingly, I believe that studying IR theory in my final semester provides an opportunity to “bring home” the wide variety of courses I’ve taken so far in my undergraduate studies in a cohesive (despite the fractured nature of the material) final course.

Furthermore, I decided to take IR theory in order to better understand the language and debates found in modern IR. In this way, I would liken taking IR theory to studying music (my original major). While it’s definitely possible to be a successful musician with little to no knowledge of musical theory, an understanding of music theory entails both a deeper understanding of the functionality of harmony melody and rhythm while also providing a language that allows musicians to communicate their ideas (ie, everyone will understand what “play a C on beat 3” means). I hope that a deeper understanding of IR theory will have a similar impact on my approach to global politics. While it is possible to make compelling points in global politics/write IR papers without a firm understanding of theory, I believe strengthening one knowledge of this background can engage with IR on a deeper level and have a clearer understanding of both the academic debates and how they relate to real world global politics on a more intricate level while also communicating these findings through a shared language.

As of this point in the course I have found the dialogue between theories (or lack thereof) to be useful in cementing my understanding of their exact arguments. I particularly found today’s visual distinction between rational and reflectivist approaches helpful in somewhat neatly sorting a variety of viewpoints and lenses that i’ve dealt with over the past few years (although I think there’s a solid case to be made that green theory could be moved to the reflectivist camp based on my own experiences but i’ll save that for later). While lenses/theories such as neoliberalism, post-colonialism, marxism, feminism and constructivism have been imperative to my writing so far at the undergraduate level, I have yet to have the opportunity to truly formally analyze these tools that have been at my disposal in a meta-analytical setting and I think this next semester will provide me with the opportunity to take a hard step back and examine how I examine IR.

Cheers,

Sawyer

Here’s the link of my first blog post!

Many of the Political Science classes that I have taken thus far have included several allusions to International Relations. Going back to POLI 100 (Introduction to Politics), the course introduced multiple schools of thought (including Green theory and Feminist theory) and vaguely glossed over each paradigm’s views when it came to the international realm. Then came POLI 260 (Introduction to Global Politics), a course that focused more on the practical aspect of International Relations, with scattered explanations of their theoretical foundations—in my experience with the course, at least. While these two courses covered a fair amount of material, there seemed to be a critical piece missing that I felt I needed in order to complete my foundational understanding of IR. I didn’t realize what it was until I took POLI 240 (Currents of Political Thought), which was fairly theory based, that I realized that it was not enough for me to just have an understanding of different political theories in general and then merely assume where they would stand in international terms. I wanted a class that would focus on exploring each theory in the specific context of International Relations. This is why I was drawn to this course.

Having attended a few classes of this course, I am confident in that I probably will come out of this class having gotten out of it what I came in searching for: an understanding of each school of thought in the specific context of IR. The class discussions concerning if IR is a “normal science” as well as the discussions about each theory being a different lens through which the world is viewed has somehow simplified my introduction to IR theory—only after taking the time to try and wrap my head around the idea that this is a discipline with little consensus and no “core paradigm” or set of foundational rules upon which all theories are constructed. While discussing the disagreements and uncertainties within the field IR at the beginning of the course made me feel hesitant about exploring this area of study, the more I let it simmer, the more sense it makes and the more I feel like the previous questions my mind had raised when IR was brought up in previous courses are being clarified. 

The discussions to do with pluralism and the lack of consensus within IR are what have intrigued me the most thus far—ironically, seeing as how this is what confused me about the field, from the start of my exposure to it. I couldn’t help but link the conversations from class with discussions had in POLI 240. My first connection was concerning Weber’s views on value-pluralism/proliferation of value spheres in modernity. The idea that world’s values were being initially shaped and controlled beneath the hands of the church/religion mirrors the grasp realism had on the world by claiming to be the only “real” school of thought. The church was an integrated/unifying institution that defined meaning (aka. thought of as a “core paradigm” – Kuhn), but having it gone meant a loss of “consensus” that puts the world in a condition of disarray—which is similar to what happened to the world after the great debates resulted in the loss of consensus in IR according to Holsti. 

Then, Weber’s idea that the world was disenchanted (given the rise of the enlightenment, science etc.) to the extent where values became fragmented to the point where the world was gaining multiple conflicting and competing value systems reflects the emerging schools of thought that have since challenged realism. 

As discussed, while this break down of consensus can be despairing for some, it is a positive thing for others. The following comparisons might be too much of a stretch but I couldn’t help but notice the similarities between our discussions and the ones had about Hobbes and Arendt in POLI 240. We discussed that Ferguson and Mansbach thought of this breakup of consensus as a way of freeing the field to other perspectives. To me, this mirrors the principle of Hannah Arendt’s perspective that separation and division of powers (ie. in government) is an intentional and good thing because it creates more centres for power and more places for debate and thus freedom. So the division of sovereignty for her creates MORE power and freedom instead of breaking it down. This is mirrored with the idea that when realism was the main school of thought, it concentrated power—or in this case, limited the view of the world to one lens without the freedom of allowing us to view the world through others. However for Hobbes, power needed to be centralized in the Leviathan, seeing as how when power is divided, civil war ensues and the Leviathan breaks down. This to me mirrors Kuhn’s thoughts on how the loss of a core paradigm—or debate without emerging with a new consensus on a new paradigm—breaks down a science, or disqualifies it from being a natural science. Following this perspective, since IR does not emerge with a new foundational and healthy core paradigm and instead, there are multiple cores belonging to each school of thought, IR breaks down, just as the Leviathan would.

After making this comparison, I feel as though I side with Arendt, Ferguson and Mansbach more than I would the others. To me, without trying on multiple lenses, it is difficult to claim that the first one tried is the correct one. Without the breakdown of the original consensus (ie. without having room to consider anything other than realism), the emergence of new lenses/paradigms would be stunted, and there would be lesser lenses to try on. In my opinion, stepping away from realism and the emergence of newer schools of thought are thus a necessary first step that is needed, in order to view the world as it is in as many perspectives as possible in order to create as complete of a picture as possible. Perhaps then, there may be potential to reach a genuine, complete and well-informed consensus (or not). 

Joanna El-Mikati

Poli 367B – Blog Post #1

https://blogs.ubc.ca/internationalrelations/2018/09/20/first-blog-grace-kim/