Dominant Development

I & B Reflective

Wow do you want to talk about the power of perspective?  I am enrolled in a development course this semester, globalization and human rights.  All semester long I have been struggling to think in a mode that will get me through this class with at least a passing grade.  The professor was trying to get everyone in the class to think in a manner that transitioned from normative to policy.  He wanted us to move past the normative and apply what we have learned to apply a human rights framework to policies.  This whole situation reminded me of the diagram that professor Jackson had designed, the practitioner vs the theorist, etc.  What I have realized from this experience is that I don’t think that the normative realm can ever be separated from practice or should be.  I also realize that the practice of development does believe that life SHOULD be a certain way and that it is their responsibility to make things that way.  Lesson learned:  I hope I don’t fail but I will never get roped into taking a development course again.

How does this tie into Inayatullah and Blaney?  It ties in that there are groups that believe that there is a universality of perspective and that it is their duty to fix the “problem” and bridge the gap between developed and developing, signifying that all roads lead to development.  Where does the line between development and Christianity diminish, is there a line?

“Despite the self-defeating character of imperialism, listening to others will not be easy for the dominant.  It is painful to hear alternative interpretations of events and ideals that are held precious, even sacred, particularly where those interpretations paint the self as cruel or unjust” (320).


Adieu

International Communication Rears Its Ugly Head

“In order to discuss religion, people have a hard time being neutral.” Jen brings up an excellent point – I think part of the core of Inayatullah and Blaney’s “solution” to the problem of difference (see p. 220). In my final IC class meeting this semester, we discussed the ides of interpretation of communication – how the recipient of a message cannot come to it neutrally. They have a life worth of experiences, belief systems, personality, general disposition, and environment manipulating everything they hear. We got into such a volleying discussion on Tuesday because people have different backgrounds, and belief, as we discussed, is often non-negotiable.

In their “solution” I&B place responsibility on the oppressed to approach the oppressor in the oppressor’s language and with the oppressor’s self-interest in mind. I think this is a good way to go about it – the more clearly something is presented to the recipient of a message, and the more this recipient’s predisposition is considered in the communication of the message, the greater the chance that the recipient hears what the communicator is saying. However, approaching such a sensitive issue as religion, or development, or any imposition of one culture’s norms onto another’s is very difficult to consider neutrally at all.

I think it is good that ProfPTJ brought up development (as, you know, the book talks about it a lot). People talk about cultural imperialism like it is a horrible thing: OMG, there’re more McDonalds around the world than anyone could imagine, my Starbucks coffee in Paris tastes exactly like my Starbucks coffee in my hometown, everyone with a television on earth has a chance to know about the joy and wonder that is Friends, we need to make the world more democratic and consumerist so they can play the game of life on the same level as us (slight exaggerations, I know). Wait…isn’t making a country more democratic and giving them marketplaces and our forms of economic interactions…development? Yes, there are fundamentals in life – being alive is sometimes considered a good thing, animals (including humans) tend to need sustenance of some sort, hydration is also important, as is (more arguably) community. However, the bar that the dominant nations set as “developed” may not be the only way to survive happily and productively. I think I&B are right with their spatio-temporal difference observation following from Todorov’s assimilation idea: in order to be able to communicate effectively (including economic ties, intellectual exchange, humanitarian ideals, everything else that could be construed as a kind of communication), we need to make the “other” more like us so we can understand them. Their “solution” also presents what I see as a viable means for solving difference – NOT eliminating difference – but having difference be less of an issue. I think, however, there should be a role for the oppressing nations too – to listen and hear what those in difference are trying to say. IF (and this is the hopeful side in me talking) this could happen, then possibly we would know what other people want and need, and not have to assume that we’re all the same.

I think it is quite accurate that Ben and Jen bring up the parallel between high school and life: I present to you my own brief anecdote: I have spent 7 summers working at a residential summer camp (under the auspices of a religious organization, but not limited to those belonging to it). Every week, 16 kids show up. I’ve had groups with every high school stereotype imaginable: cheerleaders, jockish popped collar boys, introverted “I write poetry because it is the only way I can express my discontent with society” kids, really down to earth kids you’d think were 80 if you weren’t looking at them, kids who follow laguna beach more closely that current events, etc. They all initially look at each other like, “I’m supposed to spend a week with him?” The student council member or the class clown usually tries to take over for awhile, but it doesn’t really work. They seem to be entirely dysfunctional because of their differences, and none of them will compromise the person they were coming in to be able to get along with the rest. However, if you were to see the group at the end of a week of shared experiences, challenges, and disorientation with their surroundings, you would see the same kids with all their differences having something in common. Though they all go home, they all know that there are 15 other people from around the state with whom they get along.

Communication and hearing are the keys to what I think I&B are saying. Yes, there are many things about self and other and lines, but the key is how the lines are crossed and how self finds other in him and other finds self in him. I see no need for self or other to become same, or for either to not exist – I like how I&B present the third possibility of equal but not assimilated…I think it is a worthy goal to strive towards.

Overlapping sovreignty?

In the chapter on multiple and overlapping sovereignties, there is an anecdote about the transition from Pre-British ownership India to colonial Indian. (beginning on page 191) The land ownership situation began with land-owners and cultivators. Their rights of ownership are defined differently from Locke’s definition: the landowners own a title to a constant share of production (and serve as the intermediate between the cultivator and the government), and the cultivator has rights to occupy and cultivate the land, but could not alienate it by any means to another. When the British colonized India, they transitioned in their own taxes, changed the land ownership system to their own, and eventually eliminated the Indian land ownership situation. However, there was a time in between when a land-owner’s land was their sovereign property, but the rights of trees and their fruits were still vested in those families who had planted them, regardless of the official ownership of the land on which they were planted.

This overlap of sovereignties is evident when looking at political borders versus multinational corporation properties, communications technologies, religions, etc. I think that this overlapping of sovereignties an accurate description of the current organization of international relations. However, in this kind of system, how would the order of sovereignties be communicated and enforced? It is funny in class to talk about opening up diplomatic relations with Shell or IBM...but what if their sovreignty was recognized by the world? Albiet, by Inayatullah and Blaney's text, this acknowledgement of sovreignty would lead to awareness of the "contact zone" and thus better relations. As I try to imagine a world where there are different kinds of sovreignty, I wonder if it is even possible for one organization to keep track of them all.

Whose Context?

Inayatullah and Blaney – Substanive

Well, I’m going to take a stab at this with no direction on where anybody else from the class is going to go in relation to this book.  I would first like to point out the difficultly in understanding and concentrating on the core content of Inayatullah and Blaney’s book.  I would like to immediately say, in jest of course, is that this is the reason that some IR theorists would rather just avoid the whole subject of behaviorism.  But of course I do recognize the importance of understanding individual perspectivism in building up IR locally.  States are not simply distant entities that that act on a singularity of unified perspectives.  No, international relations are instead built by individuals making decisions.

A major point that the authors attempt to relay to the audience is the socially conditioned structures of the environment (politically, socially, ets.) in which people live.  Because an idea exists does not mean that its existence is natural and real.  For the most part structures and institutions are created and should not be dogmatically accepted.  If the idea was not intentionally created then it would not exist to begin with.  This critique appears to be aimed at realist notions of the inevitability of the political environment in which international relations/politics must occur.  Hedley Bull’s defense of the anarchical society as an inevitability for example is a misleading assumption, which creates a cycle of dependence on the current political structure.  The authors of this book seem to call forth a questioning and re-examination of preexisting notions, from internal to external, from local to universal.  But then can we say that just because these features are socially constructed that we can act in a manner that is inconsistent and which does not recognize the constructions.  No, I believe that it would be foolish to act in a manner that disregards major social constructions, the international realm for example, even though our authors believe that they are created by the dominators of policy.  We can of course work toward the deconstruction of the present system but only working to build a replacement system so as not to create a political vacuum.  Who exactly should build/create this new realm?  How can one be created that takes into account differences while not relocating the “other” spacio-temporally into a zone that identifies it as backwards?

CNN? Do you actually want to give them power?

I think it was very interesting how, in class, one of the first things cited as a source of universal morality for mankind was CNN. The idea of a media source known to be favored by the US military (most of the gulf war press pool was from CNN), and critiqued as making instant history with repetitive images and catchy headlines is almost…funny. But then again, the fact that it was brought up in class shows that it’s sneaky propaganda scheme is working.

Is it possible that universal morality is just something that, to exist, must be enforced? Professor Mowlana wrote in an article that to have war in the world now, the country trying to start the intervention must be capable of global total propaganda, because of the financial implications of conflict on the rest of the world. So, perhaps CNN as universal morality was a good idea…until someone figured out that it was a biased/kind of government-favored source.

Considering this idea of media as a source for universal morality, I think of the three main moral texts in circulation worldwide now: the Torah, the Bible and the Koran. All three present moral values, and all three are very widespread.

I also thought it was really interesting how then there came the idea of CNN/media activating (by presenting predigested knowledge) a previously existing universal morality that people just didn’t know existed. I don’t like to think that this is the case, but, as Waltzer notes, the actors in war must appear to be in the right. (20) Nobody appears more right than in propaganda geared to muster support…PR has gotten too good for our own good. I think if there was a universal morality, exactly the wrong way to find it would be to conform to what the television

Morals in General

Waltzer – Reflective

A majority of the discussion in the previous class was directed toward the possibility of a universal moral consciousness, déja vu?  No.  It’s true we have seen and discussed this topic at length in relation to Kant.  A majority of individual wills in the class proposed and supported the notion that there is no such thing as a universal moral consciousness, that it is subjective in nature and changes meaning with differences.  My take, however, on Waltzer’s universal moral consciousness is similar to that of a Rousseauian general will, which is general in nature.  Perhaps then it a general moral consciousness?  But this then brings us back to Rousseau and the possibility of a universal general will.  In any case, the moral consciousness, like the general will exists in every person whether they know it or not, it is what is good for the population in question.  The general moral consciousness then is not the majority of individual morals but the morals of all in general.

Quoting Jacie from the H.M.S. Blogty:  “In the quote on page 107, from which all this conflict arises, he makes a very general and ambiguous claim when he talks about the “moral conscience of mankind”. If we don’t know (or can’t agree upon) what the moral conscience of mankind is (or if it even exists) then how can we decide if human intervention is justified or not?!”  

To respond to this quote I would like to reiterate why the moral consciousness of mankind is like Rousseau’s general will.  Does mankind simply express the idea of humanity by simply being human?  What then do we say of serial killers, rapists, and other social delinquents of the sort?  Does the idea of humanity simply disappear because of the lack of humanity in these individuals?  Can it still be considered universal although these individuals fail to fall within the boundary of the excepted definition of the universalism of humanity?  I would like to hope that we could still consider humanity as a positive attribute to all mankind despite the occasional outlier.

Likewise, I would propose a general moral consciousness to be universal in that humans, for the majority, throughout time have acted in a repetitious moral structure.  Beneath our differences in morals lies a general structure that we use to calculate our moral actions.

What do you think?

Just Wars? (to be completed...)

(after retrieving my unhappily lost book with all of my notes in it...)

Initially encountering this text, I thought how it was very interesting how Waltzer divides actors in wars:

p. 33
If you...
start war - you are wrong and to blame (and you have the option to end it)
resist war - you are right
join war unwillingly - you are blameless (but in hell)
join war willingly - you are not in hell, but you're also not particularly useful.

This early in the book, his view of morality surrounding wars is curious - if you don't want war, you are obviously in the right.

Intervention, however, is treated a little bit differently. Although joining war willingly is dumb and starting war is wrong, there are situations when not intervening is worse than intervening. However, these are only really truly just when it is a requested action from the inside of a country that will be intervened. (see page 105 for a great example of humanitarian intervention - the Bengalis called for it, and the Indians were in and out really quickly. Basically, this is the shining star).

I think it is interesting, though, how he seems to conclude his thoughts on interventions by making clear that there should be rules about them...because if they are completely outlawed, they will be ungovernable, but if they are regulated, then there is a kind of allowance for them to happen…

The REAL realism?

Waltzer – Substantive

I have been studying IR theory for a few years now and this is the first substantial book on the role of morality in war that I have read or heard of.  Of course, Thomas Aquinas is often referenced to the theory of just war as are many secular proponents, but Waltzer’s method just seems different.  Mr. Waltzer is not attempting a completely detached theory or justice from the reality of war, idealism, he seems to be intermixing normative and practical approaches.  What he seems to claim at the beginning of the book is that realism is not a true account of what life is really like, or perhaps the view of realism is not quite accurate in its undertaking.  On the Melian Dialogue, Waltzer says:  “For all its realism, however, it fails to get at the realities of that experience or to explain its character” (11).  Realism without morality just isn’t real, it is a view of life that is distanced from actual perception.  He calls this view the “moral reality of war…all those experiences of which moral language is descriptive or within which it is necessarily employed” (15).

Mr. Waltzer uses lots of examples that people would not immediately choose to further an argument of justice.  The reason for doing so would be to show that war may not only be just from the side of the victor.  For example, he gives several incidents of justice shown on the part of the axis powers, especially Germany.  He is also successful in turning the six days war, carried out by the Israeli army, normally considered to be a preventive attack into a justifiable attack in the course of a war that had already existed (82).  Mr. Waltzer likes to keep us on our toes, perhaps to not accept what is readily acceptable and to question the moral foundation of every decision we make and every decision that is made, either by ourselves or from above.  Not to move off the topic but I was watching a program on PBS this weekend which was filmed in the late 70’s, roughly about the time of this book that seemed to follow it in pretty good detail.  In any case, the narrator pointed out the fact that Stalin was totally against the war crimes tribunal of Nuremberg.  He just couldn’t understand why we allowed for the Nazi ringleaders to explain their actions.  He suggested that they be lined up and executed at one time to which Harry Truman thought was a joke and laughed.

So is realism in it’s current view really realism, considering that it acknowledges morality on a limited basis only to mask true reasons?  And even if morality were used as a façade of true perceptions then why do people feel the need to mask their true reasons?  Why does mankind restrain actions, hide perceptions, and feel the need to justify actions?

Bull's Pandemic

Bull – Reflective

What kind of event would change the international system?  Chris pointed out the infamous alien invasion in class and how the inter-state system would transform into a world government alignment.  I, however, would like to discuss the possibility of  a dissolution of the international states system, an event that would catalyze the inward concentration of the states.  This event would be an international health pandemic, on a scale that we have not known.  This pandemic would force the world to become disconnected and shut off.  Transnational contact would limit itself to virtual interactions, etc.  But would this cause the end of international society?  After all, as I have just noted, virtual interaction would not cause to the spread of the pandemic and perhaps it would even help states cooperate to overcome the pandemic.  

Well, lets just take a step back and see exactly what Bull means by the decline of the states system:  “that it has ceased or is ceasing to be capable of fulfilling the basic ends of goals of man on earth” (272).  Bull acknowledges three primary reasons that contribute to this view, including the disability of the state’s system to provide for peace and security; the inability to provide for more ambitious goals of econ and social justice; and state’s system as an obstacle to ecological harmony between man and his environment (272-273).  And to remind us what these basic elementary ends are, lets look back on page 4:  some measure of security of life against death; keeping of promises; and the stable possession of property.

I don’t know if the actual course of the international system, emanating from the preceding events of a pandemic of this sort can be foretold, life is not and should not be viewed as fatalistic because several courses of action are likely to occur, and even those that we have not thought of, like Deutsch acknowledges.  Just as ideas in correspondence to the Alien invasion were uncertain in the direction of the state’s system, the possibility of a pandemic follows a similar suit.  So will there be a total break down and dissolution of the states system or a world order, or perhaps something in between?