Another year, another IR class

Here is my first post!

Still getting the blog up, but here’s the post:

I think my initial perception of IR proper (as a field, not just an interdisciplinary undergraduate degree) was that it told a few select narratives that focused on… well, states, and by extension “politics” in the narrowest sense of the word. I imagined these theories to the ones that had initially allowed things like colonialism to happen and so fails to be accountable for the present mess it has made. I had kind of written off traditional IR or poli sci because I’m much more interested in how groups of people relate to each other, how power functions in these spaces, mapping the damage that has been done, and participating in the process of moving forward. Personally, I’ve found that aspects of more critical theory are much more helpful in dissecting interpersonal relationships and current events. Initially, I was drawn to 367 because I wanted to understand influential ideas in the broader political field. I figured I’d take this class in the Fall semester, and Critical Theory in the Winter semester. Between these two, I hope to get a solid understanding of some of the major thinkers and events that shape current debates/ discussions.

I’ve always been fascinated with why people perceive the world the way they do. I think of theory as being closely related to worldview – a set of presuppositions about the world that shapes interpretations of what is and what ought to be. Political theory seems to try to explain particular areas of the world, but is still shaped hugely by what information people receive and are able/willing to receive in their personal lives. As such, I was delighted to find myself resonating hugely with the authors of the book in the introduction who noted that, “All theories are located in space, time culture, and history” (p 9), so “[t]he choice, then, is one of whether are aware of the assumptions you are bringing to your study of the world or not” (p. 8).

My question at present is how to maximize the information I and the people around me can honestly perceive. I think it means recognizing our blinders or lenses and where they come from. In order to better engage with my varying communities, I want to understand and name the frameworks at play in conversation, and tie them back to the individual experiences. This seems especially important in what feels like an increasingly polarized political atmosphere (in North America, at least — I haven’t lived very long or anywhere else, so I feel like I can’t rightly say much). I think that real understanding of another individual means understanding the experiences and worldviews that shape certain groups of people. At some level, people stake a claim in a theory or a worldview because it matches what they see in the world, and different ideas have consequences for their interpretation of the world and their personal narrative. (Or because they live with massive cognitive dissonance, which is also possible, but a different subject.) My hope is that if people can identify their own emotions and validate their own experiences individually, they might not project it as the universal truth. It seems to tie into what the authors state about recognizing positionality in approaching an idea, but not justifying an entire framework on the basis of that single experience:

“But in putting forward this view of theory we need to be clear that we are not saying each theory is equally good at explaining everything. It is not a case of ‘anything goes.’ Thus, while we do not think theory choice is simply a matter of whatever appeals to a reader on a given day, we do think that the grounds cannot be those of one dominant view of epistemology and methodology.  (p 11)”

I really appreciated how the authors pushed readers to approach issues with nuance, to unpack their own stories, and then to appreciate what different skill sets different theories bring. At the end of the day, even if other people don’t care to interrogate what frameworks they have unconsciously adopted (and why), it is still helpful for me when navigating the social landscape around me. I’m excited for the class!

https://blogs.ubc.ca/gregpoli367/

Link Here

Link

Term 1 of the 2018 Winter Session marks my 5^th year (oof), and last semester in my undergraduates degree at the University of British Columbia. And truthfully, I am very eager to finish up my time here. With that in mind, I’d like to say that it is not my intention to use this small assignment to suck-up to anybody or appear as a highly organized, decisive, all-star student to my peers. I am actually terribly disorganized in most facets of life, but somehow I always manage to always get through it all. Anyway, what I mean to be getting at is that I’ll be completely honest regarding why I enrolled in this specific course: it is an ideal fit for my schedule. Truthfully, I am a student from a working class background with no financial support outside government lenders, so I work just as much as I study to stay above water. So honestly,  I believe at the time I signed up, which was very early in the registration period, there was no description or assigned instructor for the course, all I knew was this: it fit my schedule, my degree requirements and had something to do with ‘International Relations Theory and the International System’.

But that isn’t to say that I haven’t come to find this course interesting in the mere 3 classes that we have had up to this date. In fact, although I fear I’ll come off as a total ass kisser, I have actually come to find this course has rapidly become the most engaging course of this semester. This source of engagement has come from something that I have recognized over the years, but until now I never heard a professor so bluntly admit to in front of a pack classroom: Political Science (IR as an extension of it), and the Social Sciences in general are theory rich, but despite hundreds of years of theorizing is still lacking in empirical evidence. In fact, even though the social sciences are rapidly losing prestige, it seems we are determined to stay in our ivory towers and not actually engage the real world. Even more, the amount of theory with no empirical evidence only continues to increase with every new generation of student and professor.

I entered UBC and selected Political Science as my specialization before I ever took an International Relations course. However, I eventually did enrolled in my first International Relations course, Security Studies, by my 3rd year. The course was heavily steeped in Realism, with Mearsheimer’s ‘The Tragedy of Great Power Politics’ being the main reading and the primary focus of much of the course. At that time I thought I had found a more empirical stream of political science, but it was soon evident IR suffered exactly the same infliction of the political sciences. That is, constant theory, but a total lack of consensus based empirical evidence. I’ll admit I still find IR more scientific in comparison to Political Science, nonetheless, my disillusionment only continued.

Nonetheless, I wouldn’t say that I am totally against the course the social sciences have taken, it very likely it is completely impossible for the human mind to understand society to the point of developing universal laws in regards to how it functions like the natural sciences have with subjects like biology, chemistry and physics etc. And as such it is may be only once technology has progressed to the point computation power has far surpassed the capabilities of the human mind for it to be possible for us to come up with concrete predictions of human social outcomes. 

These day there is more harmony in my outlook. And that is despite this course having reinforced some of the conclusions I have made during my own intellectual journey over the past 5 years. That is, I still believe in the importance of the social sciences. It helps us critically engage the world, it shapes our along with the public’s opinions, and it certainly informs policy outcomes. It also has the power to shape societies abstract thinking and intellectually progress our society forward. But we have far more in common with the humanities, and especially philosophy that I think the average social scientist wants to openly admit. In the end, maybe we are better off calling ourselves social philosophers? However, I, a mere undergraduate can’t make that final judgment.

-52560159

Why I enrolled & my reflections on the possibility that most Social Sciences are really just a stream of Philosophy.

Blog Post 1