Reflection #6

If I am going to be truly honest, this week started incredibly slow for me. Having already read The Federalist Papers for the past three years of my education, I was bored and ready for some new material to discuss in World Politics. Madison and Hamilton, while having many insightful points about governance and the essence of humanity, can get boring after the fifth or sixth read. That being said, the people who you discuss these readings can change your entire perspective on the matter. Every discussion we have had this year has been intellectually stimulating and has often forced me to change my perspective on specific issues. I will also say the structure of this class has challenged my own opinions on class frameworks and what works best for me. At first, I was scared about having intimate discussions in class because I am used to the lecture and take notes format within education. Many of my previous courses revolved primarily around copying everything the teacher had said down and using that information to form my own opinion. After several weeks of these discussions, I now know that our back and forth discussions have helped me more than other teaching styles. 

Redefining Madison and Hamilton's work to fit within the framework of politics and social media today, opened new veins of debate that I had never considered before. Political discussions of the 1700s never acknowledged the existence of civil rights outside the simplicity of life, liberty, and property. With the era consisting of systematic racism and sexism, the rights of others were not considered when discussing the future of the nation — compared to today, where anyone can speak openly with the representatives on social media and create political dialogues that include all minorities. Madison and Hamilton, while trying to promote their viewpoint, came from a very realist perspective on government. Defining realism became central to our discussions on Thursday, and I felt that reading The Federalist Papers was essential to understand the article thoroughly. A realist would argue that a state cares about its place in the global balance of power and will only act if their authoritative claims are threatened. States act in their self-interest and often only care about individual needs when public pressure is put on them (often through social media).  Liberalists, however, would argue that states should protect the rights of every individual and look after their interests rather than the whole. NGOs serve as good examples of liberalist theory in action because they often advocate for the protection of the individual and are more inclined to act within a human trafficking framework.  NGOs act according to their morals, while states usually function according to their economic status and need to maintain their dominance.  While I don't agree with the morality of these decisions, I ultimately believe realism is more applicable to human trafficking and international relations in general. Liberalism assumes that humans are more willing to help protect the rights of others, while in reality (as Madison and Hamilton mentioned), humans are inherently greedy and evil. There is no reward for being a morally right individual (Athenian Thesis coming back into play), so why would world leaders act any differently? I could go even further on realism vs. liberalism in the context of world politics, but I think I will leave it at that.