Reflection #7

The simulation on Thursday was not only an appreciated chance to delve into a topical debate; it also forced me to realize the erratic and, at times, perfunctory way in which our government chooses courses of action. For the sake of the simulation, we all adopted our various personas and projected that image onto the issue of domestic content rules. Each group contributed admirable effort to argue its respective point; however, I have to admit that I was disappointed that some groups' opinions did not receive any modification. It would have been interesting to witness how a group responded to a schism within its initial structure. For example, my group members (Elana, Sarah, Priyanka) and I continually stated how our personal opinions were at perpetual odds with our argument as the consumer group. Naturally, we could not afford to display that sentiment; this debate, much like our in-class dissection of Machiavelli and The Prince, purposefully encouraged individuals within our class to adopt a wildly unfamiliar or inconceivable perspective. 

I was also surprised that no one sought to address the matter of campaign finance on Thursday. Realistically, the President could not only consider domestic content rules, but also his own reelection. As consumers, our group belabored this point mercilessly; if the President decided to ignore the opinion of the populace (which he in fact did), then the populace could choose to ignore the President just as effortlessly in the next election. However, while consumers compose the largest demographic of a presidential hopeful's voting base, large corporations and collections of likeminded individuals (with deep pockets) offer just as much appeal to a candidate. As we discovered on Thursday, the President's decisions regarding policy constitute a zero-sum game; his settlement of the matter alienated some while appeasing others. The objective is to discover the most all-encompassing conclusion that addresses the variety of concerns with the appropriate amount of specificity. 

Simulation Reflection

It would be an understatement to say that the United States political system is complicated. The arena that is our domestic politics is full of interest groups, partisan bias, vicious attacks, and individual interests that dilute the democratic ideals we claim to uphold. If nothing else, the class simulation presented to me an interesting side to the fight for political power.

Within our presentations, various groups included the same points regarding the workers/consumers, the environment, the economy, etc. However, there seem to be times when certain groups attacked others- even if they were fighting, to some extent, for the same ends. Is it that our political system has been so focused on the fight, so focused on winning the war for power and money to prove our side is “right”, that we have neglected to focus on the true issue at hand. For example (this is not necessarily the views expressed within their simulation) but within the idea of domestic product protection, Ford fought in order to protect itself as a corporation. Rather then realize the cost and benefits of the issue, altering its corporate structure depending on what could truly benefit the nation and thus go along with change or seeking common ground, they fought for their individual interests. But like all good marketing campaigns, the body involved presents its values/views as common sense and purely the “right way”. The democracy they tell us about as children, the greatness our nation is meant to posses, is one where individuals and collectives can put down their own interests, throw out bias, and bind together to uplift a society entirely. Our nation is meant to seek out the minority, give it a voice, seek out the majority and ensure it isn’t monopolizing power, and openly debate topics in such a way to bring about action.

My argument isn’t that our system is terrible and full of corruption (there is plenty of it though). My argument is that our system has started to see a rise to flaws and it is in the general interest to momentarily suspend individual concerns and fulfill our roles as up-lifters. We should take on the responsibility as Americans, a nation fostered upon change, to alter our system once again.

Reflection 7

To be honest, I have absolutely no interest in cars. I have no interest in driving or buying or researching anything that has to do with the auto industry. Yet, I was very fascinated the entire time I worked on the simulation for class. I was in the AIAM group, the Association of International Auto Manufacturers.

What was interesting to me was the fact that it was a little hard to pinpoint exactly what theory of international relations we were using during the simulation. Our group advocated removing domestic content requirements for cars. This suggests a free market society, which is obviously liberal. Yet, there were strong ideas of constructivism also. Auto manufacturers like Ford, GM, etc. are seen as inherently American because they began in America. But they also have a very large international presence. What is their identity? What is the identity of these foreign auto manufacturers – are they truly foreign if they have such a large presence in America? Finally, realism also played a role, in the idea of a monopoly on the American car industry and the need to regulate the industry to ensure American success.

Reflection 6

Time management: a concept lost upon this nap-obsessed college student. I make list upon list upon list, but the actual act of starting and finishing work within a set period of time is absolutely abstract to me. This week’s lab, and actually seeing my days mapped out (or lack of mapping) showed me how plentiful my naptime is, and how I work in short spurts of time. I really needed a session like this because of how eye opening it was. I rarely find time to just reflect on what my work ethic is and how focused I am in terms of dealing with work and handling my different activities. I also have been to the library a lot since I got there, and I am sort of ashamed to admit that I also thought that they only had research materials so it was fantastic news to hear that they have a fiction section so I can have downtime reading in the library.

As for class, I wanted to comment on the fact that the entire discussion revolved around the points that were made and clarified by students alone. Usually there is some part of the question that is expounded upon Professor Jackson, and that ends up driving most of the discussion because the statements become more controversial as they are more detailed. The fact that the discussion kept going, and everything that was said spurred another comment reflects for itself- we can really discuss anything. The question of why we named hurricanes created so much different schools of thought from pure classification purposes to driving the pathos and ethos associated with donations for relief funds. I thought that the summarization of the theories was helpful because it forced me to think from different points of view, and I needed the opportunity to compare and contrast all the IR theories against each other on the same issue.

The student-run discussion created some really interesting points about the people who are disenfranchised or feel like they have no real say in the government- often times they go to extreme measures to be a recognized entity by the world, and to be viewed as an actual viable threat. Through the end of the class, I was thinking about why this is; how many times does the international community need to be hit with bricks to understand how serious terroristic threats are? The answer would be too complex: thousands of terrorist groups have risen over the years, but only a few can actually become organized and be so intricately woven into a society it becomes a social norm of sorts, and if every threat was taken seriously, no real work would ever be accomplished. I just find it incredibly sad that so many wake-up calls need to happen in order for a terrorist organization to be taken seriously, and more terrorists feel like this “rite of passage” is now an expectation in order to prove themselves as actual threats. I remember the quote from the Spy Museum: What’s the purpose of terrorism? To kill hundreds, injure thousands, scare millions.

Reflection

One thing that seems to be quite important in any political arena is linguistics. Political thinkers tend to refer to other nations with such terms as “third-world” and other movements as “terrorism”. Sociological terms are constantly deemed unacceptable or politically correct, only to be replaced with a new “acceptable” term that will undoubtedly have it’s own expiration date. Where I take issue is the “simplistic” wording because of its purpose, it’s a summarization of a cataclysmically complex scenario. Words are an attempt to simplify a meaningful and complex matter.

The term “third-world” in itself is annoying to me. How is a nation “third world” or underdeveloped? What guidelines can one use to determine such a standing? It appears to be relative to westernization. A nation is deemed “third world” if it does not live up to the expectations or standards of the western world. This notion is in itself, in my opinion, is a step backwards. It is premodern to be so judgmental and unopen to the ideas of other cultures. Any attempt to try and consider our world as one equal playing field is moronic. Individual nations maintain certain cultural ideals over others and therefore should be respected. Who’s to say the west if the forward facing world? Why is there a need to declare a backwards and a forwards? The world is a system of trial and errors; each nation is still attempting perfection.

American revolutionaries would be considered terrorists in the modern day. It is only when you consider the entire situation that one realizes the meaning of it. The revolutionaries were fighting for freedom from tyranny in order to have a chance at something better. Therefore, individuals should be careful in there choice of words. Summarizations of movements disrespect the depth of emotion behind them.

Reflection 6

The class discussion on Thursday brought up a lot of good points about the marginalized population and their function in a state. Do they undermine the existing IR theories? Current IR theories dictate that the state is of supreme importance – even in liberalism and constructivism, where other institutions can play large roles, the state is still the head honcho.

However, I do not believe that recognizing the importance and power of marginalized people contradicts the three prevailing IR theories. Especially in liberalism and constructivism, the marginalized groups can easily fit in with the theories. If one argues that states are the most important entity in international political theory, that argument does not necessary dispute the existence or importance of other institutions or sources of power. It would probably be very hard to argue that marginalized people have never held any power or affected the international political realm, even in the slightest way. It would also be hard to argue these marginalized groups have power over state entities.

Instead, what we need to do is examine the power of all institutions and states and marginalized groups, and recognize that they all play a role in how states deal with each other. This is especially true in the age of technology, when the majority of the planet has access to learn about the groups in America and in other places that have been pushed to the bottom rungs.

Reflection #6

Our focus this week on marginalized demographics--within our classroom, society, and the universe itself--proves how natural it is for humankind to categorize in terms of "us and them." The inclusion of all within any sort of community is paramount for optimum functionality; yet inclusion is the source of conflict. Who do we include? How can we neatly define who is marginalized and who is not? Next, how do we include those who have been forced to the outer realms of society? Our discussion on Thursday produced suggestions for the voiceless and measures that can be taken to "integrate" them into the life of the community as a whole. However, history demonstrates that revolutionary acts of inclusion do not always take immediate effect, or even yield a lasting reform. I am only referencing human history in this reflection; the aftermath of future human-extraterrestrial contact is unfathomable to me. Despite the fact that the United Nations recently created an ambassadorial position for aliens, I cannot express confidence in the endeavor. We cannot even respect the relations among fellow nation-states, among our own species. How can humankind reasonably expect to pursue purely diplomatic relations with beings from another planet or universe when we often fail so miserably at those within the confines of our own? Humans are predetermined to fear that which they do not understand, to classify everything as friend or foe. Extraterrestrials would be the most marginalized group imaginable, and the repercussions of intergalactic relations would further aggravate humans' "us vs. them" mentality.