As the title suggested, I’m from China. Study political science was never my intention by any means. Back in home, we were taught to trust the Party as well as believe in communism, and yet no one can honestly explain what the final obligation is. I came to Canada about three years ago and started to think about what makes China varying from all the other countries. That’s when I began to think about politics. Over the three years, I have learned different political concepts as well as terms. Many of them are generally difficult to understand since they are so abstract and most of them are theory based.

POLI 367B is about the basic theories of international relations. I thought the course would be just like the most of the political science courses, dry and profound. The course is so fascinating that I was amazed by the politics for the first time. From 911 to realism to the debate of consensus of IR, the class was actually fun. To unpack words and theories, I could see the influences of political science from daily life instead of reading Plato’s abstracted ideologies. I could engage these theories with passion and my own experiences rather than finish the readings and hoping to get a good grade. Being an international student, I sometimes experience theories in certain ways that my home country would or Canada would as my experience goes. This course can illustrate more aspects of approaches from other different perspectives. Just like the debate over IR, although we study international relation theories, we still hold varied opinions at some point. Because of this, the discourses and debates over some ideologies made today’s IR discipline so captivating and so different from other subjects.

I like the idea of viewing the world with lenses. Everyone is different, yet so many of us are following the norms of the society. In the field of IR, we recognize ourselves more and more clearly for being naturalism and embrace the difference of states’ cultures, to shed light on the world politics and to understand the world. I wish to know why some states/governments choose some necessary political conceptualizations over others. Such as why the government of China chose communism instead of being liberal and being a democratic country. What are the fundamental factors of choosing specific policy rather than others? I believe this course would not only provide me some fundamental understanding of different theories, but I would also be able to view the world with “lenses” to follow different perspectives and shift my preconceptions, and being more naturalized.

BLOG #1: Power, Perspectives and Morrissey

Honestly, going into my first IR class I had little in terms of expectations and wasn’t quite sure what to expect. However, after hearing Dr. Crawford brief history on the field of IR I have mixed feelings about its current state. Although It probably would have been much easier to look at the world through a state vs state lens like was previously the case. It also does seem quite limiting when considering to the number of other actors who can influence the global sphere. On the other hand, the current field of IR as expressed, appears to be quite discombobulated (I’ve never used that word before) with no real consensus. Personally I don’t think the realist approach is that ridiculous as it seems to be a more macro approach. The newer perspectives of IR are much broader without much in terms of firm direction. It’s almost as though the field could be split into two different fields similar to micro and macro economics. Obviously this wouldn’t really work because everyone would start to want their own field and the credibility that IR and political science hold would become even more diminished.

That being said, if this is a field which is ambiguous and made up of numerous different ideologies, riding the fence isn’t going to get me anywhere. The realist perspective (which is quite pretentious name for a school of thought) does do some things which I like. Namely, it tries to cut to the core details of international relations. The whole idea that powerful states are all that matters makes sense at first, because realistically, what affect do NGO’s, IO’s and all the other proposed influencers have when push comes to shove. More than likely, the people with the big guns are going to be making the real decisions. In saying that, what buys guns? Money. I believe realism is a little outdated because avenues have become available for MNC’s and other groups to acquire enormous amounts of money, weapons and power. To be honest, I believe much of national and international politics is much more behind close doors and oligarchical than we’d care to believe so who knows what truly matters. All I know, is I’m excited to learn more new perspectives on the field and am open to having my mind changed.

On another note, based off Dr. Crawford’s recommendation which was seconded by my dad, I started listening to The Smiths and Morrissey. I actually quite like some of his new stuff, particularly “Spent the Day in Bed” but am yet to find someone who seconds this opinion. The Smiths on the other hand seem to be loved by all.

As it is my 4^th and final year studying political science I’ve learned that my favorite aspect of this field of study has been learning about where theory meets practice. I’ve always been interested in theory and its consequent impact on the real world. I was introduced to theory in Poli 240 and its possible political implications in Poli 260. These classes gave me a base foundational understanding for how theory in foreign relations could be applied in real world situations. This led me to take security studies Poli 360 and conflict management Poli 370. This informed my view that theory is critical for real world action to take place, especially for consequential actions in the International sphere. Whether working on war or peace-making theory is how state’s and some non-state’s actors base their decisions, it is also foundational for studying warfare and peace-making. And as important as theory is, it’s interesting to consider the implications that we ourselves affect our theory, and that we do not neutrally observe the world.

It’s an important point that no matter how scientific our means of testing and formulating theories is it will always be biased by our implicit biases. This can be seen especially within realist theory, as it presupposes that all major events in the International sphere are driven by states and that conflict is virtually inevitable, one can see how this theory when applied universally could lead to hostility between neighboring countries. Additionally, if one thinks that workers or non-state actors don’t matter, such as realists, then one can ignore the major instances when corporations or non-governmental organizations affect the global political economic sphere, massively shaping international relations.

During the great recession there was massive turmoil in the international sphere and many major events resulted from the mismanagement of central and private banks. This recession even led the Euro crises with Greece and several other EU countries falling into massive economic collapse dependent on an EU backed bailout. A realist wouldn’t look at how this recession could impact the individuals and workers across the US and EU fueling resentment against the establishment. This event caused non-state actors has implications for the international sphere, the study of IR, and the future of the global system. The point being that while theory is enticing and very useful for real world action, we should never be so caught up in it that we start to forget how much our assumptions influence theory. I’m sure this class will be interesting given how our Professor is asking us to question these theories and their implications.

Going into my final year of my undergraduate degree, I strongly believed (and still do) that taking a higher-level International Relations theory course such as the one offered by professor Robert Crawford was integral to my education as an International Relations major before graduating. Having had taken POLI 260 a couple of years ago, I knew that there was so much more to learn about the plethora of International Relations theories and about their values and limitations; I felt that I would not be able to continuously adapt and improve as an IR scholar without better grasping the theories that have been extensively assessed and vehemently adopted. This is why POLI 367B was one of the very first courses I registered for. Also, I was drawn to this course in particular because I took Professor Crawford’s course on Multinational Corporations and Globalisation last year and found that he was a very dynamic and engaging lecturer who effectively conveyed the intricacies and complexities of International Relations.

My first impression of POLI 367B exceeded my expectations (not to speak little of my expectations initially). Typically, courses on theory in any discipline tend to be very dry and hard to digest, but professor Crawford brought an atmosphere of realistic realism (as opposed to Realism), candidness, mixed with a little bit of sarcasm and a dash of dystopian humour to the class that allows him to present the history of how the discipline of International Relations came to be as well as how the different theories in IR gained popularity over time presented by IR scholars as if it were a fable. This was particularly astounding to me since the first chapter of Dunne, Kurki & Smith’s IR theory textbook shows how complex the history of the main arguments in IR and the many theories that were tested by them is. Moreover, it was refreshing to learn about a completely different take – namely Daniel Garst’s critique – than the often taken-as-truth narrative of the Neorealists regarding Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian War.

Coincidentally, our first day of class fell on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Despite of its political and historical significance on its own, we were reminded how 9/11 completely changed the academic discourse in International Relations. In particular, it was an event that demonstrated that non-state actors can be just as significant in global politics as states, discrediting Realists all over the world and giving more leverage to proponents of other IR theoretical worldviews.

Finally, I look forward to taking POLI367B this semester and to developing my own take on the many questions that are still up to debate in the scholarly discourse in IR.