poli sci diary

The lecture was mainly about history v theory in IR, and that they are two distinct ideas. What are the ontological questions-how do we know about these entities? How do we know which approach is more useful. I'm not sure if its a question of either or; mabe just different perspectives. It's kind of a time or temporal aspect that's important and a conceptual approach-which concepts define history or theory. How does dialectics or historical manicheanism contrast functinoalist conceptualizations? The former explains the dynamics in IR, a synthesis of opposing forces; good and evil. This perspective has meaning and it's leading to somewhere (not sure where at the moment--it could mean that we are always experiencing history and waitng for the next thing to happen). The functionalist approach defines the world in universalist cateories (basic needs). It is the progressive or modernistic definition of IR. It identifies the challenges and major global problems and the best way to tackle them.

One thing to remember is that the origins of IR are in history.

We loked at a couple of different table of contents. One was an example of conceptualizing things in terms of space (here, 8 different chapters).

We looked at the idea of the subparts of the conceptual space of IR. Security, order, and justice are the starting points from every theory of IR. We also looked at Maslov's hierarchy of needs table and compared it to functionalism and also how it could be viewed as a map of the world.

Posted by Carrie Swiggum at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We expanded on the organizing metaphors of IR. The professor also showed us a general definition of IR which I had been wondrering myself what the difference between IR and world or international politics was but the definition from wikipedia was not perfect. The professor pointed out that it did not include a few things, including a global civil society (citizen action beyond one's own sovereign state). Balance or homeostasia is kind of an adjustment of power among sovereign states. Heirarchy could also be looked at as a balance, like American hegemony for example. Reciprocity is a state or relationship in whcih there is a mutual action , influence, giving and taking, correspndence, etc...Reciprocity seems most like my definition of IR; interdependence. System in IR refers to topology or the theory of connectedness,. I don't really see how this is a metaphor but the profesor claims it is. The topology of IR is relevant because of its ability to represent order in things in a way that leaves out unnecessary orr unessential features. e.g. a subway map-the stops and connections are the only important pieces, other things like the distance from stop to stop are irrelevant.

Posted by Carrie Swiggum at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The question is posed: Where is IR reality? Is it intellectual, imaginary, or sensory? There are common metaphors that are used to organize IR-as a a theater, game anarchy, etc...There are actors in a theater, on a World Stage. Uncle Sam, Russian Bear (?) and John Bull were given as examples. Games can be played between nations and can also be likened to childhood games like chicken or king of the hill that symbolize IR. There is anarcy in IR defined on a few different levels. There is also a balance or homeostasia that we have yet to discuss.

Posted by Carrie Swiggum at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We talked about a few different theories of truth: correspondence theory, coherence theory, and the pragmatic theory. We were asked to describe or define war using the corresondence theory and I erronosly said a conflict between one or more groups, maybe an ideological war. But in correspondence theory you're looking for tangible physical elements. The professor described it as WMDs in Iraq and the perceived understanding that they were real and that was something to go to war over. Pluto is another example, it was a planet and everyone believed it was and now its not. Coherence theory might be described as something that makes sense internally, there may be some gaps such as evolution theory(though it is the most likely theory)

Posted by Carrie Swiggum at 12:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We talked more about civil religion and kind of compared it to nationalism, but civil religion is a concept that comes about by the people rather than the people being persuaded or forced to think or act a certain way. Civili religion is an unconscious and unexamined conviction by which we, a community define ourself. There was a questiion brought up today that needs to be thought about: What is the iconography of IR? Under what circumstances do we think things are real? I"m not sure about these; it makes it a little more difficult to come up with a topic for the essay. What are the important elements in civil religion and how are they related?

We looked at a table or contents; 50 key thinkers, and analyzed the names and categories and talked abut how it made a map. A key question wsa brought up. Under what circumstances do we think things are real? What are the real/factual/concrete things? What are the ways of knowing something for sure? WMDs in Iraq are an example. How are politics based on inference?

Posted by Carrie Swiggum at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)