#15 Axes? Levels? Types? Effects? (ym)

     I literally was staring at the blog question for a straight hour. Besides the fact that my brain is not functioning (as usual), I just needed to read the question over and over so that I could comprehend the pieces of the question step by step. Ahhh it still hurts my brain. This is so hard, but I will try.

     So there are three questions:
1. If we consider knowledge of effects, does "difference with equality" lose its moral force as an ideal?
2. Should we be looking instead to eliminate inaccuracies in favor of better-supported empirical claims?
3. Is that process itself a reassertion of the kinds of hierarchies that Todorov argues that we need to call into question?

1.
First of all (unfortunately), I finally realized that the three axes introduced by Todorov were more written equivalent than in terms of increasing (developing) levels. I think I was getting a little bit confused because I have related these axes with one of Todorov's quotes which was in ascending order of levels. As I was reflecting the past classes and this blog question, I now have a thought that the three axes presented by Todorov is more of different types and rage of thinking, instead of thinking as hierarchies. As I go back and read the quote again, I do not think he is talking about equity or inferiority (I am not saying that the thought of the three axes representing the hierarchy is incorrect... I just thought this is another way of examining his three axes... ahhh I do not know). Okay, back to the first question: what is "difference with equality"? what is "lose its moral force as an ideal"? I think "difference in equality" lose its moral force as an ideal if we consider the knowledge of effects (such as the three axes by Todorov), because now we have the perception that "knowledge of effects" is not in terms of superiority, but another "way of thinking".

2.
For the second question, I think the answer is No. This was what we have exactly discussed during the simulation on Monday. Containing an inaccurate term within a claim will give nations or people more variety in terms of understanding; which will allow different ways of thinking. Therefore, in order to avoid this situation, I think we should eliminate any inaccurate terms. However, it is also significant at the same time to not eliminate too many terms, because that will end up with a broad and vague claim. Adding a single term will open up different possibilities for people because of the variety in the interpretations. United Nations, for an example, includes some vague terms so that the majority can agree and can pass the resolution.

3.
In conclusion, if I have the mindset that this "difference in equality" allows more opportunities to think and there are just another way of thinking, I do not think the argument of Todorov is reasserting the kind of hierarchy. Of course I cannot argue that there is absolutely not inferiority within the three axes. I can definitely see the ascending level. However, if we think about the terms of effect when we think according to the three different axes, I think we can say it is not about inferiority anymore, but just different types and fields of knowledge.

     I really do not have any confidence in this blog post; which is sad, because it was our last substantive post... but I will keep thinking about this topic; until it will not hurt my brain anymore.

#11 What is central to international economic policies? (ym)

     In international economic policies, growth is definitely the central concept. One of the reasons for the importance is the integration of international economic markets. Also, obviously, if the economy develops, there will be more economic circulation within the country which will help their national economic standards, as well as developing greater relationships with other foreign countries is an international scale. Specifically, economic growth is important in the developing countries. Developing their economy means they can improve their living standards which will contribute to the reduction of poverty levels within the country.

     However, I think another key concept for international economic policies I economic equality. If the countries' economy are equal, not only that the international trade will be better that will benefit the international economic society, but also having an equal economy leads to having common shared goals and aims, which more nations are willing to think about the common good for the international society. Economic equality also has benefit in terms of solving environmental issues. Taking an example of climate change, if the economy among nations are equal and if all of the nations are paying attention to the same issue, climate change would be solved more quickly and the issue will be viewed heavily from all the nations worldwide.

     Therefore, although economic growth is significant in international economic policies, economic equality is significant as well.

#10 The Concept of National Security (ym)

     According to The Report of the Commission of Human Security by United Nations published in 2003, stated that "[human security] means using processes that build on people's strengths and aspirations. It means creating political, social, environmental, economic, military, cultural system that together the people's building blocks of survival." Therefore, I think "human (national) security" can mean anything, and anything can be a security issue. The statement above indicates that environmental and cultural problems are also being the part of securing a country, and security also means that the culture in a country is not destroyed. Therefore, I can conclude that "human security is not a concern with weapons, but it is a concern with human life and dignity." Taking an environmental issue as an example. there is a possibility that people are migrating to a country because of natural disasters. This will affect the stability and security of a country.

     However, if the countries want to protect the basis of the country's security (in terms of preventing invasion etc...), then we should have a narrower definition of "national security". It is true that both the National Security Strategy and NSC-68 used broader definition of "national security", and that is probably because the Untied States is trying to include the citizens to agree in these documents and to unify the country. Also, during the class on Monday, we have concluded that the definition of security is examplanding as time passes (publication dates for the National Security Strategy), and it has been expanding from a military perspective to basically everything. One of the reasons for this expansion, is because of the advance in technology and the increased scale of international space (i.e. cyber space etc...).

     During the class on Monday when the other blog groups were reading the board, I was reading the National Security Strategy of Japan and comparing the two contexts. It was obvious that both the Untied States and the Japanese National Security Strategy defined "national security" broadly. However, some of the comparison and interesting points were that the Japanese document mentioned the "U.S.-Japan alliance" as their second key strategy to secure their country. Rather than mentioning he military aspects, "national security" for the Japanese was to have enough skills to effectively analyze the international society and also having improvements in technology in such fields like economics and defenses.

     Therefore, overall, I agree to Wolfers argument of "national security" can mean whatever one wants it to mean, and in principle to anything can be an issue of national security. I really hope we can compare the National Security Strategy between different countries (with good translations, of course). It was fun personally comparing the content between the United States and Japan...!☺️

#8 Do people with double consciousness understand the society better? (ym)

     I definitely think that people with double consciousness understand society better than at the center. And I think it is the same for any marginal points. Double consciousness is better because a society will include all different races. Double consciousness can not only understand the feeling of the people on the marginal point, but it can also face the reality of what the centered people are thinking and making actions to solve different kinds of issues related to race and discrimination.

     Therefore, I firmly believe that double consciousness will give better understanding to the society. However, at the same time, I understand that in order to have the double consciousness, people need the experience for it, and not everyone cannot get the experience even if they want. Because of that reason, in order to be closer to the mindset of people who have double consciousness, I argue the importance and efficiency of having different perspectives. Although this still cannot have a better understanding of the society compared to the people who have double consciousness, by having multiple perspectives, we can think about the society through different "lens" and from different "viewpoints".

     Also, if the society was completely equal where all the thoughts from any races were considered, I think the statement: "Those at the center have the luxury of not having to do so." is not exactly true. Rather than that, isn't being able to think within multiple perspectives more of a luxury...?

#7 Is constructivism portrayed as idealistic & utopian? (ym)

     I am from Ota City. I am from Gunma Prefecture. I am from Japan. I am from Asia. From which place could you understand my home? Let me reflect the discussion on Monday first before I answer the blog question for this week.

The statements that was definitely related to me was:

1. Holt (referring to Brigid): "Learning a new language will develop a new personality."

And yes, I can definitely relate this to myself. I have different personalities and identities when I am speaking English and Japanese. When I am in a English speaking environment, I tend to get shy and I cannot speak up a lot during class. However, when I am in a Japanese speaking environment, I am in a position to make people laugh, and I am definitely more social.

2. Eli: "The was people speak English is being modified and unified as time passes."

This was interesting to listen to, because I think it is the opposite in Japan. Since Japanese is only spoken in Japan, people still have dialects in certain places. However, we think dialects as one of the cultures and traditions, and we value them still today (I don't speak any dialects though, I wish. They are cute.) Therefore, I could conclude that the size and popularity of the language affects the variety of how people speak certain languages.

     Is constructivism portrayed as idealistic & utopian? Constructivism is the thought that the world is structured socially. Therefore, it is often referred to as ontology and epistemology. Usually the definitions are not fixed, and it has possibilities to change their definitions according to the thoughts and beliefs people have the idea. This can relate to the article we read for the discussion on Monday. Social norms and relations can be changed as time passes according to a constructivist. Therefore, I can understand that people's identity can be changed too.

     For an example, the United States and United Kingdom holding 500 nuclear weapons, and North Korea holding 5 nuclear weapons give different impacts to the International society today. This image is caused because of the difference in the social relationship between the US-UK relationship, and North Korea-United States relationship. Also, I can state that shared knowledge created within the nation will strictly affect building the founding image of a certain country.

     Also, in constructivism, identity plays a large role. All the actions by the nation must come along with the country's identity. In small countries, their goal might be to "survive". On the other hand, in larger countries, their goal might to be to control other countries politically, economically, and military. This shows a great difference between Realism, because in Realism the balance of power between nation-state are the priority.

     I want to use the example of Climate Strikes to show the difference between Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism. First of all, constructivists would think climate strikes are effective because eventually part of the government will listen to the voice of the public and provoke actions. However, liberals will view climate strikes as ineffective because they view economic growth and scientific solutions as their priority. Lastly, realists will view climate strikes also ineffective because of the damage it gives to the national interest.

     Overall, I think I will conclude that constructivism is portrayed as idealistic. (It was funny how on Monday many classmates were looking at me when talking about different languages. Yes, I should have talked (maybe), but I have my blog to talk to so ◡̈⃝)

#6 The Development of Social Media and Federalist Papers (ym)

     Social media has a significant impact in the US politics today. Well not only in the United States because a Japanese teenager, like me, can comment about President Donald Trump's presidency, and it can start a whole conversation about US politics or even the US-Japan relationship, literally anything. The internet has also made American democracy more inclusive that it was in the Founders' Day, amplifying the voices of women, minorities, and other disadvantaged groups they excluded. The world changed with a greater freedom of speech, which the writers of the Federalist Papers have not expected at all.

     In 1787 and 1788, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay argued about the advantages and disadvantages of the new framework of United States government through newspapers. First of all, as I have mentioned above, the development of social media have allowed the public to share their opinions easily and freely. The development of technologies and globalization allow the people to share and receive information whenever they want to no matter where they are.

     Madison feared that congress would be the most dangerous branch of the federal government, sucking power into its "impetuous vortex." Therefore, I can say that the founding fathers might tremble and distress if they see the United States today. Media popularization has allowed the citizens to isolate themselves into virtual fractions, communicating only with the group of public who are interested in politics to reinforce their shared beliefs. Especially, social media can often share and spread misinformation and end up inflaming the public. Indeed, people on Facebook and Twitter are likely to be interested to aggressive and inflammable topics or posts. The passion that Madison was fearing from a large group of people have been proved that there are even more dangerous by people from all over the world meeting online.

     James Madison, in the Federalist Paper No.10, argued that a republican government should introduce a system of "representation"; here the elites who have knowledge, patriotism, and justice should have the perception of the government without the direct participation of the public. I think that Madison cannot argue this in this modern day, because politicians cannot betray the power of the public and prioritize their personal interests. This is because of the development of the public power by the developed technology such as social media. As the public share their opinions in social media such as Twitter, the politician will naturally be unable to stay in congress. However, I think that Madison was really saved by the development of social media. This is because on his Federalist Paper, he failed to consider the possibility that the politicians will prioritize their personal interests and use their status as a tool to earn a higher degree or salary. The whole argument of Madison in his republican government theory, was to function the mechanism of the perplex of personal interest and its deterrence by assuming their mutual conflicts.

     (Honestly, I was crying inside because I was mad that I did not speak up during class this week. I wanted to revenge and write a good blog post that is satisfying, but it didn't go well. As an outsider reading the Federalist Paper for the first time in my life, was difficult and it took me a long time to read. I will promise to myself that I will take risks and continue to challenge myself. I will try.)

Works Cited:
Akio, Y. Is the Republic Peaceful? An Aspect of American International Political Thought in Hamilton and Madison. (pp. 205-233).

#5 Realism (ym)

     Watching the video clip of Greta Thunberg, was thought-provoking. Her speech was impactful and I was happy that the young generation have power to make voice to the international society. However, I am ashamed to say that I did not know a lot about climate strikes until some of my classmates were not showing up to classes on Friday. After learning and researching a little about realism made me think deeper about climate strikes, as well as the idea of realism itself.

     "Today's allies can be tomorrow's enemies." Realism emphasizes the role of nation-state & make a broad assumption that all nation-states are motivated by their national interests. Realists may claim that politics are constrained as a result from human nature, and the absence of a central authority above the state. From a realist perspective, you cannot trust anyone in the world, and therefore you cannot be interdependent among nations or states. One of the most important views as a realist, is that democracy does not work in the society since people have to live with diversity.

     What I realized is that in realism, there is no one who is responsible internationally, because all of their stories are in the nation-state scales. It is obvious that when all the nations and states do whatever they want to do for their national interest, there will be conflicts. However, when those conflicts happen (might be resulting in a war), there is no one responsible for the situation. Connecting this fact to the actions for climate strikes, I think realists will not see the actions as effective. From their perspective, using resources is important to develop their nations and earn greater economical benefits. Even if they end up running out from all the resources, they might claim that it is not their fault. However, at the same time, I want to believe that even the realists have changed ther mind a little bilt from the climate strikes 2019. I was surprised by all the people when I saw the pictures from social media.

     When I was researching about realism, I found out the relationship between realism and the Islamic State (IS) interesting. Obviously, it is true that the actions of Islamic State is such a global issue although they are not a nation nor a state. The overall goal of the IS is to build "Caliph" which is a new country, and block the intervention by the western countries from the geographical, cultural, and political aspects. As mentioned before, IS (still) has a relative power as one of the nations, because they were able to occupy territories from Iraq and the Syrian Republic. The way they maintained this, is by bombings. The bombings by the IS not only exposed menace to the western countries, but a wider area of countries. I think we can conclude, that although the tactics are up to date, the other nation-states are relying on the old strategies which keep a balance with realism. In order for the realists to manage the unstable situation, they view "balance of power" and "prevention" as their priorities. In the case of IS, they are clear with these priorities. In terms of balance of power, countries which attacked the IS (i.e. United States, Russia, France...) only rely on alliances with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran when they are convenient and favorable. For the IS, preventing their enemies by menace (such as bombing for human trafficking) is their fastest way to get their territories back from countries. I think I can conclude, that from a realist perspective, the actions of IS are rational. Because they are strengthening their own power by using the fear of terrorisms, as well as offset the influence of western nations in Iraq and the Syrian Republic. Firstly, the revenge attacks from the western countries will strengthen the emotion of middle-east citizens to support the IS. Secondly, it is creating voluntary actions in order to achieve the group (IS)'s aim, not even being afraid of death.

     I need people's opinions! Thank you!

#4 The Prince by Machiavelli (ym)

     The Prince, written by Machiavelli is the first book ever to be about how to be a politician. In his book, the focus was: the extent fundamental characteristics of human beings have an effect on national security of a state. However, because he tried to make his book as concise as possible, he disregarded the complexity of human beings, and failed to consider all the different exceptions of human beings and their actions. Machiavelli's strong belief in power summarizes the entire book. The supreme proposition in the build up of authorities and the case when that is feared as the power of revenge by the rivalry.

     Although Machiaelli is basically correct in terms of his different themes he brings up, one of the limitations is that Machiavelli categorized 1. the prince, 2. the nobleman, and 3. the public with only one unit, which is "power". Throughout the book, the content is written from the side of those in power viewing the people who does not have power by using the legalities. It is lacking the third person perspective that can critically analyze the position of both the prince and the people. Also, in order to analyze a nation, the single unit of measurement, in this case "power", failed to encompass the complexities and flexibility of a working government.

     Another limitation is the contradiction between realism and idealism. Although Machiavelli invented the concept of realism, the text is still idealistic because he eliminated all the backgrounds and uniqueness that he had to consider.

     William B. Allen, in Machiavelli and Modernity, stated that "... At the very last, politics becomes the management of symbols in which fewer and fewer people believe." which is very true and can be related to the current Japanese society for an example. As an International Student from Japan, I was surprised by how Americans have their interests in US politics, that they can have a whole debate together. This will not be happening this frequent in Japan, and it is actually proved by its low voting rate by the younger generation. It is so obvious from the data how people are not interested in their own country's government.

     Overall, Machiavelli left the greatest question of: what the other factor than "power" that is able to form and sustain the government is.

#3 The Athenian Thesis in The Truth About Awiti (ym)

Obviously, Awiti can be the main character who supports the Athenian thesis in the story. Although she is not in the "stronger" groups of people, she still acknowledges the fact that power does matter in society, and how African Americans do not have enough power to end the Atlantic slave trade. 
"They say this is what happened in the beginning when I was simply a girl in my village. Random acts of evil descended upon African and cursed our people. We became slaves, and even when our chains were removed, our minds remained in bondage. The world continued to look down upon us and treat our descendants as though they should still be enslaved. ... The strange men took what was most valuable to our village, to any man, really---our freedom" (Patrick 293).

In this part, it is clearly shown that she acknowledges that "the world continues to look down upon us", which her wordings does connect to the content of the Athenian Thesis that only the power matters. Also, in Chapter 24 Black Bird "I'm not weak, Grandfather. I just..." (Patrick 241), it shows off how Awiti is controlled by "power" by using the word "weak".

However, interestingly, it can be said that Awiti also supports the thesis by the Melians; that justice should be the primary consideration to be fair for all people. Although Awiti's first priorities were the psychological conflict she had by herself (of not being able to overcome the grief although she wants to and needs to sacrifice herself to achieve peace) and the desire to reunite with her family, she uses the stance of the Melians thesis for her outward principle, which might be to hide her true aim.

"I can end that. I can help people get to the afterlife. A place of peace. No more suffering" (Patrick 289).

     How Awiti is trying to take responsibility of the African American slaves to not have the same experience as her, but failing by her strong desire of vengeance, might be one of the ways to show her justice.

Awiti is obviously the main character in the book, thus she brings different encounters to the readers. How Awiti is both attracted to power and justice, is definitely one of the topics the author wants to discuss with the readers, and the contradiction of Awiti trying to balance out the two but not being able to do that, is making the psychological conflict even harder.