Originally, I was not planning to do an overall reflection about this course. But then... I was getting kind of emotional and everything... so... (if my memory is working), I am going to reflect my 15 weeks of World Politics during the fall semester 2019.
I remember the first day of class when I walked into the classroom being really really nervous. The fact that I am a part of the Global Scholars Program, the fact that I have a different style of the World Politics class which I thought it required so many skills, made me so nervous that I was even scared for the first few weeks (actually months) of the semester.
Although I did not really speak up during class, I truly learned a lot by listening to my classmates speak their thoughts and opinions. Not only the thoughts, but how they develop their arguments from picking up specific elements from the reading that we were assigned, and how they apply their arguments to the real world in the International society today. Specifically, the class was not only about the ideas of World Politics and the major school of thoughts, but it was much more about the significant factors in order to discuss World Politics (which I might discuss in the final essay). If I ask myself if I grew up during this semester, I cannot answer a straight "Yes" in terms of speaking up during class. It will take me a much longer time in order to quickly develop some effective arguments to share with the class. However, reflecting these blog posts, I want to believe that I am somehow writing a better post compared to the first few weeks of the semester. One of the important things I have learned throughout this course, is the unlimited opportunities we have in order to learn what we want to learn. The topics we discussed in class and some of the blog questions made me think a lot and actually made me research in my own time to deepen my understanding about those topics, which I feel what a true learner does.
Starting off with the day when we discussed the difference between "global affairs", "international relations", and "world politics", to the day when we played Diplomatic Risk, to the day when we played the simulations, to the day when we had the "fishbowls", group discussions, and debates...
I remember the excitement and nervousness feeling at the same time on Mondays and Thursdays 9:45-11:00. I cannot thank Professor Jackson enough for all of the supports throughout the semester; I could not go through without it. Also, thank you to everyone in the program who really motivated and stimulated me to do my best in class. I can say out loud that joining the Global Scholars Program was not a mistake. I am happy that I was able to learn with this group, and I think I am "wealthy".
Showing posts with label ym. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ym. Show all posts
Thursday, December 5, 2019
#15 Class Participation Post (ym)
Starting off my last class participation post about the simulation! I truly enjoyed the mixed emotions during the simulation as the Japanese delegation.
"We are going to dredge into the ocean".
That is literally how the Japanese delegation felt throughout the simulation, because most of the representatives wanted to discuss about Issue II. I was totally forgetting the fact that there were more representatives of institutions and organizations than the countries. Issue I, short-term goals for the refugees was not really important for those institutions. I could have noticed that earlier, and raised my hand in the very beginning of the simulation so that we could have started discussing from Issue I, which was more effective for delegations such as Japan and China. Well overall, regardless of the fact that we could only add a term, I wished the delegate of Kiribati was here along with some more countries of the pacific. (I appreciate the fact that PTJ noticed how desperate I wanted to raise my hand to move onto Issue I, and told Gabby so that Japan could speak and move on.)
"the Dream has not come true. It may be that it has no home."
When I first read this quote, the word "Dream" caught me into my eyes. Afterwards, the quote made a lot more sense. "Of course." I was telling myself in my mind, "A dream cannot have any homes, because there is no endpoint for any dreams. It continues to develop, so we are not able to achieve them."
An interesting question we did not get to answer was: Does society has dreams? Although I could not come up with an answer during class, as I was thinking about it, I think all societies have their own dreams. People, also, have a natural curiosity about dreams. However, because of the lack of resources, usually dreams have low priority within any civilized societies. As a consequence, little or no attempt is made to encourage their pursuit or to provide the necessary means to do so. While answering this question by typing out here, I was thinking about the dream of the world. I cam up with an answer of: No, the world does not have any dreams because there is not any perspective from the "world". Some may argue that the United Nations or some international institutions can be the representation of the world. However, as we have discussed in the very beginning of this World Politics class, the definitions of "world" and "international" are different. Therefore, although "world peace" might be one of the dreams in the world today, I do not think that is necessary the dream of the world.
"We are going to dredge into the ocean".
That is literally how the Japanese delegation felt throughout the simulation, because most of the representatives wanted to discuss about Issue II. I was totally forgetting the fact that there were more representatives of institutions and organizations than the countries. Issue I, short-term goals for the refugees was not really important for those institutions. I could have noticed that earlier, and raised my hand in the very beginning of the simulation so that we could have started discussing from Issue I, which was more effective for delegations such as Japan and China. Well overall, regardless of the fact that we could only add a term, I wished the delegate of Kiribati was here along with some more countries of the pacific. (I appreciate the fact that PTJ noticed how desperate I wanted to raise my hand to move onto Issue I, and told Gabby so that Japan could speak and move on.)
"the Dream has not come true. It may be that it has no home."
When I first read this quote, the word "Dream" caught me into my eyes. Afterwards, the quote made a lot more sense. "Of course." I was telling myself in my mind, "A dream cannot have any homes, because there is no endpoint for any dreams. It continues to develop, so we are not able to achieve them."
An interesting question we did not get to answer was: Does society has dreams? Although I could not come up with an answer during class, as I was thinking about it, I think all societies have their own dreams. People, also, have a natural curiosity about dreams. However, because of the lack of resources, usually dreams have low priority within any civilized societies. As a consequence, little or no attempt is made to encourage their pursuit or to provide the necessary means to do so. While answering this question by typing out here, I was thinking about the dream of the world. I cam up with an answer of: No, the world does not have any dreams because there is not any perspective from the "world". Some may argue that the United Nations or some international institutions can be the representation of the world. However, as we have discussed in the very beginning of this World Politics class, the definitions of "world" and "international" are different. Therefore, although "world peace" might be one of the dreams in the world today, I do not think that is necessary the dream of the world.
Tuesday, December 3, 2019
#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.
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.
Sunday, December 1, 2019
#14 Class Participation (ym)
The class on Monday was interesting. The quote picked up during class was:
"Find your country sweet is only a raw beginner. Finding each country as your own is already strong. Finding the whole world as a foreign country is perfect."
Also, we discussed about the three axes Todorov introduced; axiological level, praxeological level, and epistemic level and tried to connect with the quote above.
First of all, I would like to add my own explanation to this quote above. Maybe Todorov wrote this quote is such as concise way so the readers can easily understand. However, if people were to analyze this quote in their own ways, I can tell there will be so many different ways to describe this quote. In terms of the simple thought of this quote, I can understand the content (what he is trying to tell the readers). However, I disagree with the last sentence of his quote. I can agree with him, if he is meaning to say that if we view a world from an outside perspective objectively, then it is the ideal way. But at the same time, I felt that it is impossible to view a country from an outside perspective as a foreign country if you do not know any other countries. I just think that he needed to include some descriptions and explanations about this quote so that it would be able to avoid the confusion by the readers.
Next, when connecting this quote to the three axes, I personally do not think that it is just simple as it is. I think many readers would tie them as:
・Finding your country sweet is only a raw beginner.
→ Axiological level: good or bad
・Finding each country as your own is already strong.
→ Parxeological level: identifying self with others, imposing the image upon others
・Finding the world world as a foreign country is perfect.
→ Epistemic level: knowing others' identity and understanding the fact
Of course, I can understand and see this idea. For an example, if you take a close look at the quote, the scale of the "country" is increasing as the perspective and the way of thinking is developing. Also, as each level develops, the way people judge their values are developing in a "better" way; people are being able to understand more within a complicated complex scale.
The choice of words are the key in both this quote and the explanations of the three aces. Generally, I appreciate the word choices of Todorov, because I can understand the reason he is using the worlds for some specific definitions that those words can contain. However, at the same time, I think there are certain word choices where I feel he could have had a better decision about it.
"Find your country sweet is only a raw beginner. Finding each country as your own is already strong. Finding the whole world as a foreign country is perfect."
Also, we discussed about the three axes Todorov introduced; axiological level, praxeological level, and epistemic level and tried to connect with the quote above.
First of all, I would like to add my own explanation to this quote above. Maybe Todorov wrote this quote is such as concise way so the readers can easily understand. However, if people were to analyze this quote in their own ways, I can tell there will be so many different ways to describe this quote. In terms of the simple thought of this quote, I can understand the content (what he is trying to tell the readers). However, I disagree with the last sentence of his quote. I can agree with him, if he is meaning to say that if we view a world from an outside perspective objectively, then it is the ideal way. But at the same time, I felt that it is impossible to view a country from an outside perspective as a foreign country if you do not know any other countries. I just think that he needed to include some descriptions and explanations about this quote so that it would be able to avoid the confusion by the readers.
Next, when connecting this quote to the three axes, I personally do not think that it is just simple as it is. I think many readers would tie them as:
・Finding your country sweet is only a raw beginner.
→ Axiological level: good or bad
・Finding each country as your own is already strong.
→ Parxeological level: identifying self with others, imposing the image upon others
・Finding the world world as a foreign country is perfect.
→ Epistemic level: knowing others' identity and understanding the fact
Of course, I can understand and see this idea. For an example, if you take a close look at the quote, the scale of the "country" is increasing as the perspective and the way of thinking is developing. Also, as each level develops, the way people judge their values are developing in a "better" way; people are being able to understand more within a complicated complex scale.
The choice of words are the key in both this quote and the explanations of the three aces. Generally, I appreciate the word choices of Todorov, because I can understand the reason he is using the worlds for some specific definitions that those words can contain. However, at the same time, I think there are certain word choices where I feel he could have had a better decision about it.
#14 Reflection (ym)
Because I was planning to write about the class on Monday in the class participation post, I do not know what to reflect because it was Thanksgiving...
If I have to write something about the simulation, our group [representing Japan] met up on Sunday last week to write our resolution paper. I was personally happy and satisfied because I was able to contribute in the team by suggesting some ideas (it is one of the main resolution suggested from Japan, since we are not going to accept any refugees). I remember when I walked into the office hours, PTJ told me that Japan has a specific goal about this topic. I have several guesses, but I still cannot tell which one. If there is a chance for me to speak up during the simulation to pose the plan, I might. But I am excited overall... also scared of China a little bit... lol
If I have to write something about the simulation, our group [representing Japan] met up on Sunday last week to write our resolution paper. I was personally happy and satisfied because I was able to contribute in the team by suggesting some ideas (it is one of the main resolution suggested from Japan, since we are not going to accept any refugees). I remember when I walked into the office hours, PTJ told me that Japan has a specific goal about this topic. I have several guesses, but I still cannot tell which one. If there is a chance for me to speak up during the simulation to pose the plan, I might. But I am excited overall... also scared of China a little bit... lol
Saturday, November 23, 2019
#13 Reflection (ym)
Since my reflection posts were what now called "class participation posts", I thought I want to do a regular reflection post for this week. Specifically because it was the toughest and definitely a rough week, and also because the semester is also ending.
This week, so many final papers and essays were due, as well as exams. Different things were due everyday, which I do not remember anymore even though I am reflecting my planner. One of the things that is difficult for me from everyone else, is that I take a much longer time to read or write. Therefore, especially for World Politics, reading The Conquest of America for the first time in my life was (is still) really time consuming. Personally, it is one of the hardest books I have ever read. Half of the reason is because I do not know the history of the United States that well, but that is just a reason I am making.
Reflecting this semester overall, I am not satisfied at all. I remember when I was still in Japan, I was thinking that I should not go hard first semester, because there will be so many other things to deal with, along with moving in and adjusting to the new environment. Int terms of classes, it was not the hardest within all of my academic career. However, I most definitely did not do my best. Although I tried my best in comprehending all of the readings and writings, I could have prepared for my classes better by spending more time for each of my courses. Because I knew that I am behind everyone else, I should have planned what I wanted to comment during class discussions so that I could have actively participated in classes more often.
As terms of the blog, I really appreciate this space as a student who is struggling to speak up during class discussions. Blogs gave me the opportunity to reflect on my classes and some noteworthy arguments, and then do some extended research so that I can learn while writing these posts and actually learn outside of classes by myself. Also, of course, commenting on others' posts brought new insights to our perspectives which was really effective in opening and widening them to be a better learner.
Time management is key in anything, but especially in college life. Being with my friends is stress-relieving; however it is actually stressful sometimes. That is absolutely related to my study habits; I tend to focus better when I am alone or one friend, rather than studying with one big friend group. Since I am not a person who studies in the room nor the dorm, I am usually in the sis building by myself at night. Reflecting this semester, I think I have a good balance where I was with my friends studying and studying by myself. However, for the next semester, I definitely should increase the time where I am by myself so that I can focus on my work more. One of the goals for the next semester, is to go off campus on weekdays and study at a cute cafe all day. I couldn't do this because I had classes everyday this semester; however, I have Wednesdays off next semester, so it is actually possible now.
Next week, I am most likely to be writing about the simulation, so I am not mentioning about the simulation for now. I need to organize mom thoughts for future classes and blog posts, getting ready for finals as well.
This week, so many final papers and essays were due, as well as exams. Different things were due everyday, which I do not remember anymore even though I am reflecting my planner. One of the things that is difficult for me from everyone else, is that I take a much longer time to read or write. Therefore, especially for World Politics, reading The Conquest of America for the first time in my life was (is still) really time consuming. Personally, it is one of the hardest books I have ever read. Half of the reason is because I do not know the history of the United States that well, but that is just a reason I am making.
Reflecting this semester overall, I am not satisfied at all. I remember when I was still in Japan, I was thinking that I should not go hard first semester, because there will be so many other things to deal with, along with moving in and adjusting to the new environment. Int terms of classes, it was not the hardest within all of my academic career. However, I most definitely did not do my best. Although I tried my best in comprehending all of the readings and writings, I could have prepared for my classes better by spending more time for each of my courses. Because I knew that I am behind everyone else, I should have planned what I wanted to comment during class discussions so that I could have actively participated in classes more often.
As terms of the blog, I really appreciate this space as a student who is struggling to speak up during class discussions. Blogs gave me the opportunity to reflect on my classes and some noteworthy arguments, and then do some extended research so that I can learn while writing these posts and actually learn outside of classes by myself. Also, of course, commenting on others' posts brought new insights to our perspectives which was really effective in opening and widening them to be a better learner.
Time management is key in anything, but especially in college life. Being with my friends is stress-relieving; however it is actually stressful sometimes. That is absolutely related to my study habits; I tend to focus better when I am alone or one friend, rather than studying with one big friend group. Since I am not a person who studies in the room nor the dorm, I am usually in the sis building by myself at night. Reflecting this semester, I think I have a good balance where I was with my friends studying and studying by myself. However, for the next semester, I definitely should increase the time where I am by myself so that I can focus on my work more. One of the goals for the next semester, is to go off campus on weekdays and study at a cute cafe all day. I couldn't do this because I had classes everyday this semester; however, I have Wednesdays off next semester, so it is actually possible now.
Next week, I am most likely to be writing about the simulation, so I am not mentioning about the simulation for now. I need to organize mom thoughts for future classes and blog posts, getting ready for finals as well.
#13 Class Participation Post (ym)
In Part 3 of The Conquest of America, the most noteworthy part (for me during the discussion) was:
"La Casas loves the Indians. And is a Christian. For him, these two traits are linked: he loves the Indians precisely because he is a Christian, and he love illustrates his faith. Yet such solidarity is not a matter of course. As we have seen, precisely because he was a Christian, his perception of the Indians was poor. Can we really love someone if we know little or nothing of his identity; if we see, in place of that identity, a projection of ourselves or of our ideals? We know that such a thing is quite possible, even frequent, in personal relations; but what happens in cultural confrontations? Doesn't one culture risk trying to transform the other in its own name, and therefore risk subjugating it as well? How much is such love worth?" (168).
So shortening this long quote, the question that we really could not spend time discussing was:
Can we fully understand people and still hate him/her?, which can be interpreted as: What goals are we trying to aim to understand?
When I first read this question, I thought it was possible to hate someone even though you know everything about that person. Because hate is a kind of emotion, and it differs among people. However, as time passed and I think about this question, I started changing my mind that it might not be possible to hate someone after hearing all of their opinions and thoughts. Instead of hating that person, I think people would make a decision not to understand about the person anymore because they are walking different paths in their lives, and they do not have to interact with each other because they can choose not to.
Also, I can understand his point of religion and christianity, that he does not consider religion true for him, but it is universal and it is valid for everyone. Although I think that the power of religion in order to unify people around the world have decreased, christianity definitely had power to control people in the 1500s when the book was published. I think people are arguing that a universal value such as christianity is needed in order to treat everyone equally. Therefore, if some people do not believe in religion and christianity and do not belong within the universal value, the world cannot achieve equality. However, it brings an interesting question of whether people can be equal (at the time) with having some people being non-religious or even atheists. It was interesting how Locke's Letter of Tolerance came up during class mentioning about how atheists are unacceptable because it does not get along with their principles about equality. I cannot expand this topic since I do not know much about religion and christianity, however I strongly think that the power of religion have definitely decreased as time passes, especially because people started valuing their own personalities and their choices each person makes, and now there are different religions that are unifying different continents or areas of the world.
Going back to the quote, I still sometimes question myself with the first part of the quote. Is it not easier to love someone who has similar identities because you can understand each other well? It was interesting to read how La Casas loves the Indians because they have a different identity, and that has to do with religion and faith that makes their identity.
"La Casas loves the Indians. And is a Christian. For him, these two traits are linked: he loves the Indians precisely because he is a Christian, and he love illustrates his faith. Yet such solidarity is not a matter of course. As we have seen, precisely because he was a Christian, his perception of the Indians was poor. Can we really love someone if we know little or nothing of his identity; if we see, in place of that identity, a projection of ourselves or of our ideals? We know that such a thing is quite possible, even frequent, in personal relations; but what happens in cultural confrontations? Doesn't one culture risk trying to transform the other in its own name, and therefore risk subjugating it as well? How much is such love worth?" (168).
So shortening this long quote, the question that we really could not spend time discussing was:
Can we fully understand people and still hate him/her?, which can be interpreted as: What goals are we trying to aim to understand?
When I first read this question, I thought it was possible to hate someone even though you know everything about that person. Because hate is a kind of emotion, and it differs among people. However, as time passed and I think about this question, I started changing my mind that it might not be possible to hate someone after hearing all of their opinions and thoughts. Instead of hating that person, I think people would make a decision not to understand about the person anymore because they are walking different paths in their lives, and they do not have to interact with each other because they can choose not to.
Also, I can understand his point of religion and christianity, that he does not consider religion true for him, but it is universal and it is valid for everyone. Although I think that the power of religion in order to unify people around the world have decreased, christianity definitely had power to control people in the 1500s when the book was published. I think people are arguing that a universal value such as christianity is needed in order to treat everyone equally. Therefore, if some people do not believe in religion and christianity and do not belong within the universal value, the world cannot achieve equality. However, it brings an interesting question of whether people can be equal (at the time) with having some people being non-religious or even atheists. It was interesting how Locke's Letter of Tolerance came up during class mentioning about how atheists are unacceptable because it does not get along with their principles about equality. I cannot expand this topic since I do not know much about religion and christianity, however I strongly think that the power of religion have definitely decreased as time passes, especially because people started valuing their own personalities and their choices each person makes, and now there are different religions that are unifying different continents or areas of the world.
Going back to the quote, I still sometimes question myself with the first part of the quote. Is it not easier to love someone who has similar identities because you can understand each other well? It was interesting to read how La Casas loves the Indians because they have a different identity, and that has to do with religion and faith that makes their identity.
Sunday, November 17, 2019
#12 Reflection (ym)
For the reflection this week, I want to discuss about the current ongoing tensions between Japan and South Korea from a Constructivist point of view (as I promised from last week!).
First of all, I will summarize the current tension between Japan and South Korea. Although we have so many issues to be discussed between these two countries, one of the most recent one was about Japan tightening material exports to South Korea. On August 2nd 2019, Japan decided to remove South Korea from the "White Countries"; which is a group of trading countries with Japan which they are firstly prioritized with less restrictions and checking process to export materials. The decision was made because South Korea has been refusing to share the reports of where the exported materials from Japan has been sent off to. Because of this, Japan was not able to know where their materials were sent to after South Korea, and there was a high possibility that those exported materials are partially sent to North Korea or other countries which may be used for military purposes. Then, on August 22nd, South Korea announces that they will abrogate GSOMIA. GSOMIA Stans for General Security of Military Information Agreement, and it was the most significant alliance between Japan, South Korea, and the United States. Now that this is banned and not existing anymore, there is not realistic way for Japan to prevent the random missile attacks caused by North Korea.
In order to examine this issue from a Constructivist point of view, we must understand the world outlook and history of the Moon administration, and how the South Korea national identity has been constructed. Also, in this case, Constructivism is much more significant compared to Realism because Constructivism focuses on how different factors for profits and ideologies. For South Korea, one of the obvious strategies of the Moon administration is the titfortat strategy. In this case too, they made an action because initially Japan removed them from the prioritized list of countries. They prioritize honors over the actual profit. However, in my personal opinion, from a Constructivist perspective, I can understand that South Korea wanted to revenge Japan and expired GSOMIA. However, as a Japanese I question why South Korea did not clarify where the exported materials went and published an official document to prove that they are doing nothing wrong.
I was still in Japan when all of this suddenly happened, and therefore I only have the Japanese perspective when discussing about this issue. I hope I can discuss this with people from a South Korean perspective, and I would also be happy if I can get some objective point of view from people with the American perspective :) (Thank you again for throwing this question to my blog entry! I was able to learn a lot by this!)
So the comment I received in one of my blog entries was:
How could a constructivist view the ongoing tensions between Japan and South Korea?
First of all, I will summarize the current tension between Japan and South Korea. Although we have so many issues to be discussed between these two countries, one of the most recent one was about Japan tightening material exports to South Korea. On August 2nd 2019, Japan decided to remove South Korea from the "White Countries"; which is a group of trading countries with Japan which they are firstly prioritized with less restrictions and checking process to export materials. The decision was made because South Korea has been refusing to share the reports of where the exported materials from Japan has been sent off to. Because of this, Japan was not able to know where their materials were sent to after South Korea, and there was a high possibility that those exported materials are partially sent to North Korea or other countries which may be used for military purposes. Then, on August 22nd, South Korea announces that they will abrogate GSOMIA. GSOMIA Stans for General Security of Military Information Agreement, and it was the most significant alliance between Japan, South Korea, and the United States. Now that this is banned and not existing anymore, there is not realistic way for Japan to prevent the random missile attacks caused by North Korea.
In order to examine this issue from a Constructivist point of view, we must understand the world outlook and history of the Moon administration, and how the South Korea national identity has been constructed. Also, in this case, Constructivism is much more significant compared to Realism because Constructivism focuses on how different factors for profits and ideologies. For South Korea, one of the obvious strategies of the Moon administration is the titfortat strategy. In this case too, they made an action because initially Japan removed them from the prioritized list of countries. They prioritize honors over the actual profit. However, in my personal opinion, from a Constructivist perspective, I can understand that South Korea wanted to revenge Japan and expired GSOMIA. However, as a Japanese I question why South Korea did not clarify where the exported materials went and published an official document to prove that they are doing nothing wrong.
I was still in Japan when all of this suddenly happened, and therefore I only have the Japanese perspective when discussing about this issue. I hope I can discuss this with people from a South Korean perspective, and I would also be happy if I can get some objective point of view from people with the American perspective :) (Thank you again for throwing this question to my blog entry! I was able to learn a lot by this!)
Thursday, November 14, 2019
#12 Class Participation Post (ym)
The quote we discussed in class on Thursday was:
"Columbus has discovered the Americas, but not the Americans" (49).
As our group has shared to class, I think Todorov means that Columbus was able to discover the land, its nature, and the existence of human beings (Indians). However, he is arguing that Columbus did not discover the new identities and cultures, because he had this selective perception towards the people who lived on the land.
Then, during the open discussion, the term "selective perception" has shifted to "ignorance" or Columbus ignoring these Indians. I was thinking to myself throughout the discussion if Columbus was acting as chosen ignorance or conscious ignorance. However, when PTJ commented to focus more on the "ignorance" part of the key term "chose ignorance", I have finally realized that Columbus is not even ignoring these human beings. This is because "ignorance" means not to recognize the value of existence of these people, but rather he did not "accept" their existence or their new identities and cultures. Also, in terms of how Columbus was "single-minded" throughout his journey, I think this was because he stick to the principle of not accepting certain things that he did not want to expect.
Also, mentioning about Ethnocentrism, I definitely agree that Columbus had this principle because he has emphasized about how human beings should be white and be pursuing Christianity throughout the first chapter of this book. I also want to touch on Egocentrism because Todorov does bring this term. When I first read this part, I could agree to what he wanted to tell the readers. However, when I looked up the definition of Egocentrism, it meant something different. The definition of Egocentrism is: "the inability to differentiate between yourself and others", which is different from what Todorov wanted to tell the readers in this context. Because he did differentiate between the white christians and the Indians.
Lastly, I want to answer to Alexandra's question of what happens if we encounter a new land today with different kinds of organisms. I partially agree with her point that we will be doing the same thing that Columbus did to the Indians; which is forcing them our language and culture in order to communicate. However, on the other hand, I feel we would act differently than how Columbus acted because of the development of modern technologies.
"Columbus has discovered the Americas, but not the Americans" (49).
As our group has shared to class, I think Todorov means that Columbus was able to discover the land, its nature, and the existence of human beings (Indians). However, he is arguing that Columbus did not discover the new identities and cultures, because he had this selective perception towards the people who lived on the land.
Then, during the open discussion, the term "selective perception" has shifted to "ignorance" or Columbus ignoring these Indians. I was thinking to myself throughout the discussion if Columbus was acting as chosen ignorance or conscious ignorance. However, when PTJ commented to focus more on the "ignorance" part of the key term "chose ignorance", I have finally realized that Columbus is not even ignoring these human beings. This is because "ignorance" means not to recognize the value of existence of these people, but rather he did not "accept" their existence or their new identities and cultures. Also, in terms of how Columbus was "single-minded" throughout his journey, I think this was because he stick to the principle of not accepting certain things that he did not want to expect.
Also, mentioning about Ethnocentrism, I definitely agree that Columbus had this principle because he has emphasized about how human beings should be white and be pursuing Christianity throughout the first chapter of this book. I also want to touch on Egocentrism because Todorov does bring this term. When I first read this part, I could agree to what he wanted to tell the readers. However, when I looked up the definition of Egocentrism, it meant something different. The definition of Egocentrism is: "the inability to differentiate between yourself and others", which is different from what Todorov wanted to tell the readers in this context. Because he did differentiate between the white christians and the Indians.
Lastly, I want to answer to Alexandra's question of what happens if we encounter a new land today with different kinds of organisms. I partially agree with her point that we will be doing the same thing that Columbus did to the Indians; which is forcing them our language and culture in order to communicate. However, on the other hand, I feel we would act differently than how Columbus acted because of the development of modern technologies.
Saturday, November 9, 2019
#11 Reflection (ym)
For my reflection this week, I would like to reply to all of the comments I have received from the start of the semester (Since there's a new category for our blog posts called the class participation posts). I am honestly happy for this new category because it is what I have been doing for my reflection posts and it will count for my participation grade!
From #7 Is Constructivism portrayed idealistic & utopian?
1. Why is Constructivism idealistic compared to Realism & Liberalism?
Although I answered that Constructivism is the most idealistic in IR, the balance between the three school of thoughts (Realism, Liberalism, & Constructivism) is obviously important. However, in terms of IR, it is ideal and significant because Constructivism concerns with the role of ideas in shaping the international society the most. Without the idea of Constructivism, I do not think IR would not develop, and nations will not have mutually beneficial relationship with each other.
2. How could a constructivist view the ongoing tensions between Japan & South Korea?
Okay, I did some research in order to answer this question, and I found a very interesting article. It's going to be long if I answer this here, so I will promise I will write about this question next week... :)
From #8 Do people with double consciousness understand society better?
1. Is being able to think within multiple perspectives more of a luxury?
(↑ a question I posted at the end of the post)
Being able to view the world is accomplished by observing and emphasizing with those in the center and in the outside. In order to create compromise and solutions to decrease the lack of awareness, one must understand both accounts. I believe everyone has a viewpoint to offer that is valuable and if one has an open mind, willing to learn from others in order to see a problem from multiple points of view that is when we will begin building stronger bridges between the center and those on the outside.
Would you agree or did you have a different answer to this question?
I absolutely agree! What I wanted to emphasize on this blog entry, was that people cannot have double consciousness even though they want to. Specific people who have gone through the tough times of being out of the margin can only have double consciousness, which they have better understanding of the society. Therefore, the closest way to understand the people out of the margin is by having different perspectives whenever you think.
From #10 The Concept of National Security
1. Do you think the Japanese government strategies for national security is liberal or constructivist?
I think the Japanese national security strategy applies both the liberal and constructivist perspective. However, I think liberal is still the main idea that they pursue. One of the reasons for my opinion is because the Japanese national security strategy focuses its national interest more on the economic and political development within the country. This represents the liberal idea of recognizing the importance of politics and economy, and that nations will not fight each other when we increase the economic mutual dependency with other countries. Although liberal is the main idea, constructivism is still necessary because Japan thinks that countries actions are going to be decided by how other countries are viewing us (therefore they raise the significance of being a non nuclear weapon holder).
From #11 What is central to International Economic Policies?
1. While growth is necessary and can be reasoned that growth will eventually lead to economic equity there is the argument that in the pursuit of this goal, the actions taken may actually cause deeper rifts and consequences to the developing nations. Do you think this is true or is growth solely a positive endeavor?
I think this is so true, because that is what exactly happened to the current developed nations. Growth is definitely viewed as one of the most significant factors, however we must understand that growth can also be the key to create larger disparity among countries which will increase inequality. I think the makes the topic of development difficult because every aspect is related to each other, and one can cause another issue.
2. How do you think economic equality could be further implemented? Would it be different from those incentives in the post WWII institutions, or would it follow an entirely new basis?
I think economic equality should be further implemented by considering the previous goals we have in the post WWII institutions. However, it is also true that the field of international development is rapidly growing and changing, and therefore we need some new aspects into the current policies. In order to deliver equity in economies, agencies should implement a more systematic understanding of equity and inequity into their policy decisions.
1. Why is Constructivism idealistic compared to Realism & Liberalism?
Although I answered that Constructivism is the most idealistic in IR, the balance between the three school of thoughts (Realism, Liberalism, & Constructivism) is obviously important. However, in terms of IR, it is ideal and significant because Constructivism concerns with the role of ideas in shaping the international society the most. Without the idea of Constructivism, I do not think IR would not develop, and nations will not have mutually beneficial relationship with each other.
2. How could a constructivist view the ongoing tensions between Japan & South Korea?
Okay, I did some research in order to answer this question, and I found a very interesting article. It's going to be long if I answer this here, so I will promise I will write about this question next week... :)
From #8 Do people with double consciousness understand society better?
1. Is being able to think within multiple perspectives more of a luxury?
(↑ a question I posted at the end of the post)
Being able to view the world is accomplished by observing and emphasizing with those in the center and in the outside. In order to create compromise and solutions to decrease the lack of awareness, one must understand both accounts. I believe everyone has a viewpoint to offer that is valuable and if one has an open mind, willing to learn from others in order to see a problem from multiple points of view that is when we will begin building stronger bridges between the center and those on the outside.
Would you agree or did you have a different answer to this question?
I absolutely agree! What I wanted to emphasize on this blog entry, was that people cannot have double consciousness even though they want to. Specific people who have gone through the tough times of being out of the margin can only have double consciousness, which they have better understanding of the society. Therefore, the closest way to understand the people out of the margin is by having different perspectives whenever you think.
From #10 The Concept of National Security
1. Do you think the Japanese government strategies for national security is liberal or constructivist?
I think the Japanese national security strategy applies both the liberal and constructivist perspective. However, I think liberal is still the main idea that they pursue. One of the reasons for my opinion is because the Japanese national security strategy focuses its national interest more on the economic and political development within the country. This represents the liberal idea of recognizing the importance of politics and economy, and that nations will not fight each other when we increase the economic mutual dependency with other countries. Although liberal is the main idea, constructivism is still necessary because Japan thinks that countries actions are going to be decided by how other countries are viewing us (therefore they raise the significance of being a non nuclear weapon holder).
From #11 What is central to International Economic Policies?
1. While growth is necessary and can be reasoned that growth will eventually lead to economic equity there is the argument that in the pursuit of this goal, the actions taken may actually cause deeper rifts and consequences to the developing nations. Do you think this is true or is growth solely a positive endeavor?
I think this is so true, because that is what exactly happened to the current developed nations. Growth is definitely viewed as one of the most significant factors, however we must understand that growth can also be the key to create larger disparity among countries which will increase inequality. I think the makes the topic of development difficult because every aspect is related to each other, and one can cause another issue.
2. How do you think economic equality could be further implemented? Would it be different from those incentives in the post WWII institutions, or would it follow an entirely new basis?
I think economic equality should be further implemented by considering the previous goals we have in the post WWII institutions. However, it is also true that the field of international development is rapidly growing and changing, and therefore we need some new aspects into the current policies. In order to deliver equity in economies, agencies should implement a more systematic understanding of equity and inequity into their policy decisions.
Friday, November 8, 2019
#11 Class Participation Post (ym)
My reflection blog posts are now going to shift to this category because that is what I have been doing for the past few months! It was my first time being inside the fishbowl, and I had moments when I really wanted to speak, but I could not because of the flow of the discussion and also I was afraid if I was repeating people's points but changing it to my own words; which was not what I meant to do.
First of all, the question for the discussion: Are you wealthy?
I answered that I am not wealthy in the financial aspects. However, comparing to people within the Global Scholars Program, I might be more wealthy in terms of knowledge, experience, and perspective because I have a different background from everybody with a different perspective (I am not smart that is not the point). After finished answering the question above, I have came to a conclusion that in order to answer this question, we need the information of "what" field of wealth we are talking about and "who" we are comparing with. Therefore, I disagree with the idea that wealth can be determined by yourself, but we always need a comparison with others.
In terms of the article, I had a question when reading which was...
"The political economy inspired addition to the problem presented by the sovereignty dilemma highlights the difficulty of realizing concrete sovereignty when the wealth necessary for such expression is beyond the state's authority." (I am sorry I forgot to note the page number...) What does beyond the states's authority means in this context? I would appreciate if someone can answer this question by commenting on this post! :)
Reflecting the discussion overall, I felt it was more biased and relied on "wealthy" and the relationship between sovereignty and colonialism. If there were more time, we were definitely able to examine the effect of colonialism on developing the underdeveloped countries today. After the discussion, Shruthi mentioned about the "Past Dependency Theory", which made me think a lot. The current developing countries were colonized because of their resources, and if they were able to retain their resources, they could have developed much more as the western countries. International Development is definitely the field that I am interested for my future career, and I have realized that I was being too optimistic about this issue. Different theories and logics such as the parent-child theory which I do not agree, there are too many barriers for the developing countries in order to develop to catch up to the developed countries. Also, I agree with the logic of catch-22 in this article. When I first finished reading this article, I have realized that in order to have sovereignty, structural inequality and division of labor are necessary. Also, I cannot forget mentioning this, and y'all need to remember: A specific country in East Asia (which starts with a "C") does produce fake brand western products... but at least not in Japan...!!
First of all, the question for the discussion: Are you wealthy?
I answered that I am not wealthy in the financial aspects. However, comparing to people within the Global Scholars Program, I might be more wealthy in terms of knowledge, experience, and perspective because I have a different background from everybody with a different perspective (I am not smart that is not the point). After finished answering the question above, I have came to a conclusion that in order to answer this question, we need the information of "what" field of wealth we are talking about and "who" we are comparing with. Therefore, I disagree with the idea that wealth can be determined by yourself, but we always need a comparison with others.
In terms of the article, I had a question when reading which was...
"The political economy inspired addition to the problem presented by the sovereignty dilemma highlights the difficulty of realizing concrete sovereignty when the wealth necessary for such expression is beyond the state's authority." (I am sorry I forgot to note the page number...) What does beyond the states's authority means in this context? I would appreciate if someone can answer this question by commenting on this post! :)
Reflecting the discussion overall, I felt it was more biased and relied on "wealthy" and the relationship between sovereignty and colonialism. If there were more time, we were definitely able to examine the effect of colonialism on developing the underdeveloped countries today. After the discussion, Shruthi mentioned about the "Past Dependency Theory", which made me think a lot. The current developing countries were colonized because of their resources, and if they were able to retain their resources, they could have developed much more as the western countries. International Development is definitely the field that I am interested for my future career, and I have realized that I was being too optimistic about this issue. Different theories and logics such as the parent-child theory which I do not agree, there are too many barriers for the developing countries in order to develop to catch up to the developed countries. Also, I agree with the logic of catch-22 in this article. When I first finished reading this article, I have realized that in order to have sovereignty, structural inequality and division of labor are necessary. Also, I cannot forget mentioning this, and y'all need to remember: A specific country in East Asia (which starts with a "C") does produce fake brand western products... but at least not in Japan...!!
Monday, November 4, 2019
#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.
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.
Sunday, November 3, 2019
#10 Reflection (ym)
First of all, I want to reflect this weekend...! Starting from Halloween to my birthday, it was an incredible week ever. Also, my birthday weekend was the best weekend ever since I moved to D.C.! I had so much fun with my friends and it was totally refreshing. (Thank you to everyone who celebrated my birthday :)
Reflecting the class from Thursday (with our costumes), some of the things that caught me was:
Danniel: "Women in Asia should protest for empowerment and make actions for women, such as not buying newspapers anymore etc..."
(I forgot who... ><): "Asian countries are using media to draw attention from the western nations."
During the discussion and even after the class on Thursday, I kept thinking what the Asian countries should do in general to reduce our gender difference. Surprisingly, I think some of the people in Japan think that gender difference is an old issue to talk about, which is false. It explains how long the issue of gender difference has existed in Asian countries, and the people have lived with it. I agree to Danniel's point of Asian women should take some actions for empowerment. However, I question if they should stop buying newspapers, because newspapers are one of the most credible sources (although they of course have limitation). With the development of technology, news articles are much easier to be published online these days. However, it also raises the limitation of allowing everyone to publish whatever they want, which makes people difficult to judge each article's credibility of the article or other sources. Also, acting to not buy newspapers will not directly help solve the issue of gender difference because newspapers do not only write about gender difference issues, and it will not help to grow the female journalist either. Along with the point that newspapers are still the most credible sources, newspapers have the most impact to foreign countries such as the other western countries to draw their attention. I absolutely agree that Asian sources are trying to draw attention from foreign countries, especially from the United States to be the cause of some important political actions between the countries.
Listening to my classmates analyze the Taiwan article, it made me think about the difference between Japan and the other Asian countries. Although the gender difference is still big within Japan, the issues are different from Taiwan. However, for all of the Asian countries, it is true that the media construction plays an important role in shaping the common knowledge shared by the public, which is strongly connected and impacted by Social Constructivism. Reading this article made me better understand the concept of Social Constructivism, which states that words and emotions belong to the belonging culture and community, and their definition can change anytime under different cultures. Also, concepts and words are created by dialogues between people.
Reflecting the class from Thursday (with our costumes), some of the things that caught me was:
Danniel: "Women in Asia should protest for empowerment and make actions for women, such as not buying newspapers anymore etc..."
(I forgot who... ><): "Asian countries are using media to draw attention from the western nations."
During the discussion and even after the class on Thursday, I kept thinking what the Asian countries should do in general to reduce our gender difference. Surprisingly, I think some of the people in Japan think that gender difference is an old issue to talk about, which is false. It explains how long the issue of gender difference has existed in Asian countries, and the people have lived with it. I agree to Danniel's point of Asian women should take some actions for empowerment. However, I question if they should stop buying newspapers, because newspapers are one of the most credible sources (although they of course have limitation). With the development of technology, news articles are much easier to be published online these days. However, it also raises the limitation of allowing everyone to publish whatever they want, which makes people difficult to judge each article's credibility of the article or other sources. Also, acting to not buy newspapers will not directly help solve the issue of gender difference because newspapers do not only write about gender difference issues, and it will not help to grow the female journalist either. Along with the point that newspapers are still the most credible sources, newspapers have the most impact to foreign countries such as the other western countries to draw their attention. I absolutely agree that Asian sources are trying to draw attention from foreign countries, especially from the United States to be the cause of some important political actions between the countries.
Listening to my classmates analyze the Taiwan article, it made me think about the difference between Japan and the other Asian countries. Although the gender difference is still big within Japan, the issues are different from Taiwan. However, for all of the Asian countries, it is true that the media construction plays an important role in shaping the common knowledge shared by the public, which is strongly connected and impacted by Social Constructivism. Reading this article made me better understand the concept of Social Constructivism, which states that words and emotions belong to the belonging culture and community, and their definition can change anytime under different cultures. Also, concepts and words are created by dialogues between people.
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
#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...!☺️
Sunday, October 27, 2019
#9 Reflection (ym)
The simulation reminded me of Model United Nations. It has been a while since I have recently participated in a Model United Conference, so it was strange, but comparing different stances in each company was fun, and there were contradictions obviously. The point that was different from a Model United Conference, it that there were companies that were under the United States government as well as nonprofit organizations (NGOs). Because governments were involved in half of the groups, it was difficult for us to lead the discussion and incorporate both perspectives into one resolution paper; I think this is totally applicable to the world today.
In terms of improvements, as we reflected over in class, we focused on the Nigerian perspective more than the United States perspective which was interesting, however as companies and organization from the United States, we should have thought from the United States perspective to benefit our country by involving in Nigeria. Also, I really hope for the next simulation, we get to type in the resolution paper and go through the voting process to decide our resolution for the simulation conference. As a representation of Lockheed Martin, I think we could have played a role to create a combined resolution paper between two different stances (one with the companies and the other with NGOs), and we were having conversations with both of the stances. I personally felt that Lockheed Martin had one of the key role in this simulation, and I wished we had more time for this simulation event.
Although I have lots of improvements that I can make in my presentation (public speaking skills in general), I think the simulation prepared me in general for the future classes in World Politics. I think I am starting to be able to talk during class which I should, so I should challenge doing the rebuttal in the future debates...
In terms of improvements, as we reflected over in class, we focused on the Nigerian perspective more than the United States perspective which was interesting, however as companies and organization from the United States, we should have thought from the United States perspective to benefit our country by involving in Nigeria. Also, I really hope for the next simulation, we get to type in the resolution paper and go through the voting process to decide our resolution for the simulation conference. As a representation of Lockheed Martin, I think we could have played a role to create a combined resolution paper between two different stances (one with the companies and the other with NGOs), and we were having conversations with both of the stances. I personally felt that Lockheed Martin had one of the key role in this simulation, and I wished we had more time for this simulation event.
Although I have lots of improvements that I can make in my presentation (public speaking skills in general), I think the simulation prepared me in general for the future classes in World Politics. I think I am starting to be able to talk during class which I should, so I should challenge doing the rebuttal in the future debates...
Saturday, October 19, 2019
#8 Reflection (ym)
Spoke up for the first time in class! (probably the longest record a global scholar will ever have lol) Although it was so unexpected. I completely thought we are going to discuss about Drawing the Global Colour Line by Marilyn Lake and Henry Renolds, so I have been preparing for that... so let me introduce some points that I wanted to make :)
1. About the Japanese culture / language
The article talked about how the Japanese wanted their language to be one of the official languages in Australia. Japan is such an isolated country, that it is difficult to integrate to other cultures. As a Japanese who has somewhat of an international perspective, this has both advantages and disadvantages. I have talked about in my previous blog post, but one of the advantages of our country being isolated (kind of) is that we can keep our tradition and culture. Because we do not have so many various types of new cultures coming in (we do have a lot of course, but it is unidirectional in a way to phrase it), there is a distinct line between our traditional cultures and our new cultures. However, for an example, connecting to the Japanese language, one of the disadvantages is that Japanese is only spoken by the Japanese people. It is difficult to spread our cultures such as the languages to other countries. That being said, since Japanese is only spoken in Japan, it is not necessary to bring Japanese as the official language in Australia.
2. From a Realist perspective
After I read the article, one of the things that was noteworthy for me, was that Australia was not aware of the consequences that: the Japanese will start dominating the nation. Although from a realist perspective, they [Australia] want their people to be the strongest in the nation. Then I had this question of: Why did Australia bring Japanese as the workforce? Why didn't they bring white people to pursue their "whiteness"?
Also, I had some thoughts when we were discussing about the question: Is racial hierarchy resolvable? so I will share them here :)
1. Eli's point of communism being the best ideology
I disagree with this point. I totally understand that the principle of communism is great and idealistic to any nation in the world. However, if you look at the communist nations today (i.e. China, Russia), the government is not acting according to the principles at all because of their human nature capitalism.
2. Relating to climate change
I just wanted to share this with the class. I have read before, that from a developing country point of view, it is not fair that the developed countries are arguing and trying to solve climate change when it is time for the developing countries to develop economically and become strong industrial countries. I consider this as racial hierarchy too. When I was reflecting about this topic, I have finally realized how difficult it is to solve this issue. Because the earth is our priority, if we run out of resources, we cannot do anything. However, if we take actions to solve the climate change issues, inequalities between the developed and the developing countries will increase by the developing countries not being able to develop to catch up to the developed countries.
1. About the Japanese culture / language
The article talked about how the Japanese wanted their language to be one of the official languages in Australia. Japan is such an isolated country, that it is difficult to integrate to other cultures. As a Japanese who has somewhat of an international perspective, this has both advantages and disadvantages. I have talked about in my previous blog post, but one of the advantages of our country being isolated (kind of) is that we can keep our tradition and culture. Because we do not have so many various types of new cultures coming in (we do have a lot of course, but it is unidirectional in a way to phrase it), there is a distinct line between our traditional cultures and our new cultures. However, for an example, connecting to the Japanese language, one of the disadvantages is that Japanese is only spoken by the Japanese people. It is difficult to spread our cultures such as the languages to other countries. That being said, since Japanese is only spoken in Japan, it is not necessary to bring Japanese as the official language in Australia.
2. From a Realist perspective
After I read the article, one of the things that was noteworthy for me, was that Australia was not aware of the consequences that: the Japanese will start dominating the nation. Although from a realist perspective, they [Australia] want their people to be the strongest in the nation. Then I had this question of: Why did Australia bring Japanese as the workforce? Why didn't they bring white people to pursue their "whiteness"?
Also, I had some thoughts when we were discussing about the question: Is racial hierarchy resolvable? so I will share them here :)
1. Eli's point of communism being the best ideology
I disagree with this point. I totally understand that the principle of communism is great and idealistic to any nation in the world. However, if you look at the communist nations today (i.e. China, Russia), the government is not acting according to the principles at all because of their human nature capitalism.
2. Relating to climate change
I just wanted to share this with the class. I have read before, that from a developing country point of view, it is not fair that the developed countries are arguing and trying to solve climate change when it is time for the developing countries to develop economically and become strong industrial countries. I consider this as racial hierarchy too. When I was reflecting about this topic, I have finally realized how difficult it is to solve this issue. Because the earth is our priority, if we run out of resources, we cannot do anything. However, if we take actions to solve the climate change issues, inequalities between the developed and the developing countries will increase by the developing countries not being able to develop to catch up to the developed countries.
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
#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...?
Thursday, October 10, 2019
#7 Reflection (ym)
Is it the mid semester already? I cannot believe it. Since I have reflected some for this week already, I am going to write a reflection of my college life in general.
College is fun. I always dreamed to be a college student when I was in high school. The only reason was because I thought I can learn what I want to learn in college (plus I can be more independent). This was half true and half false when I started classes from the end of August. There are many wonderful opportunities in AU, and I am excited for all of the research and learning that I can do in this environment. However, as a fact that I am a freshman, I first need to finish certain requirements for my degree, which makes me feel like I am back to junior high. Since I was in International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme for high school, I was somehow used to writing research papers and presentations. Learning a new language and re-learning mathematics (I took Math HL) is still fun, but sometimes boring for me.
Being as a part of Global Scholars Program, is definitely a challenge. I have written about my anxiety and excitement in this program in my past blog entries, but I do not think that has changed at all. I am kind of sad that it is the mid semester and I am still not able to actively participate during classes, but I honestly do not know if time will solve this problem for me. I definitely learn so much from the discussions and debates, and it deepened my understanding about all the principles for World Politics (and International Relations) that I have never learned before. One of the curriculum I had in my school in Japan, was to have multiple perspectives when learning. So for the next half of the semester, I will remind myself to have a different perspective from everyone else, and try to make arguments (points) that I can make as the only international student in the cohort, so that it will bring new perspectives and ideas to the discussions. In order to be able to do that, I need to manage my time to spend more time on the readings, since it takes me a longer time than anybody else to read for classes. Also, I want to keep spending my time on my blog posts, because this will be the tool I will be using to organize my thoughts for the class and to do further research to deepen my understanding of a specific concept. Since I am in this program, I cannot give up, and I am going to go beyond my limit and challenge myself until I can be satisfied with myself.
I think life in general is okay. I have comfortable communities (friend groups) that I belong to, and I enjoy my time outside of classes. I am in a dance team now (I am a terrible dancer by the way), and I will probably let you know if I am ever performing which is coming up soon... :)
College is fun. I always dreamed to be a college student when I was in high school. The only reason was because I thought I can learn what I want to learn in college (plus I can be more independent). This was half true and half false when I started classes from the end of August. There are many wonderful opportunities in AU, and I am excited for all of the research and learning that I can do in this environment. However, as a fact that I am a freshman, I first need to finish certain requirements for my degree, which makes me feel like I am back to junior high. Since I was in International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme for high school, I was somehow used to writing research papers and presentations. Learning a new language and re-learning mathematics (I took Math HL) is still fun, but sometimes boring for me.
Being as a part of Global Scholars Program, is definitely a challenge. I have written about my anxiety and excitement in this program in my past blog entries, but I do not think that has changed at all. I am kind of sad that it is the mid semester and I am still not able to actively participate during classes, but I honestly do not know if time will solve this problem for me. I definitely learn so much from the discussions and debates, and it deepened my understanding about all the principles for World Politics (and International Relations) that I have never learned before. One of the curriculum I had in my school in Japan, was to have multiple perspectives when learning. So for the next half of the semester, I will remind myself to have a different perspective from everyone else, and try to make arguments (points) that I can make as the only international student in the cohort, so that it will bring new perspectives and ideas to the discussions. In order to be able to do that, I need to manage my time to spend more time on the readings, since it takes me a longer time than anybody else to read for classes. Also, I want to keep spending my time on my blog posts, because this will be the tool I will be using to organize my thoughts for the class and to do further research to deepen my understanding of a specific concept. Since I am in this program, I cannot give up, and I am going to go beyond my limit and challenge myself until I can be satisfied with myself.
I think life in general is okay. I have comfortable communities (friend groups) that I belong to, and I enjoy my time outside of classes. I am in a dance team now (I am a terrible dancer by the way), and I will probably let you know if I am ever performing which is coming up soon... :)
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
#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 ◡̈⃝)
Saturday, October 5, 2019
#6 Reflection (ym)
This week was rough overall. Especially on Monday, I was mad and disappointed at myself because I could not speak up during class. Everyone says that since I am the only international student, I will be influential in discussions by introducing new perspectives that I naturally have. I do not know why, but I do not know how and what to speak up during discussions. However, the class on Thursday was fun. After discussing in small groups on Monday, I have guessed that we will be in pairs on Thursday. I do not think I brought up that many points, but I could have a better understanding of the two concepts after talking within the pair and discussing as a whole group. I think I had fun on Thursday compared to any other World Politics classes.
One of the most interesting ideas that was brought up during the discussion, is that:
When a country makes a law regards human trafficking, it pushes off the issue of human trafficking to countries who have not criminalized human trafficking. As a result, criminalization will spread out across the globe, and it will help solving the issue in the international scale. However, that is a liberal approach since the countries are making their laws just because of their national interest.
In my opinion, realists still pursue their interests (like everyone else was saying during the discussion). Therefore, I do not think that the equation: power:realism = interest:liberalism works. However, I do want to think about the border line between two ideologies. I truly believe that we are able to have a deeper analysis on International Relations when referring both realism and liberalism. For an example, without liberalism International organizations such as the United Nations or IMF cannot exist. Also, I want to emphasize that without a liberal perspective, globalization to this day would not be possible. However, realism, in terms of their theory, creates a type of balance where one nation will not be stronger than the other within the international society. This is because realists focuses on the balance of power within nation-states.
P.S. I was just calling my friend in Galesburg Illinois, who also studies abroad as an international student from Japan and it made me feel so much better. Although I will keep trying my hardest, my starting point is different from everybody else, and I do not have to rush. The only rival is myself. So I will continue to develop as a learner everyday. ◡̈⃝
One of the most interesting ideas that was brought up during the discussion, is that:
When a country makes a law regards human trafficking, it pushes off the issue of human trafficking to countries who have not criminalized human trafficking. As a result, criminalization will spread out across the globe, and it will help solving the issue in the international scale. However, that is a liberal approach since the countries are making their laws just because of their national interest.
In my opinion, realists still pursue their interests (like everyone else was saying during the discussion). Therefore, I do not think that the equation: power:realism = interest:liberalism works. However, I do want to think about the border line between two ideologies. I truly believe that we are able to have a deeper analysis on International Relations when referring both realism and liberalism. For an example, without liberalism International organizations such as the United Nations or IMF cannot exist. Also, I want to emphasize that without a liberal perspective, globalization to this day would not be possible. However, realism, in terms of their theory, creates a type of balance where one nation will not be stronger than the other within the international society. This is because realists focuses on the balance of power within nation-states.
P.S. I was just calling my friend in Galesburg Illinois, who also studies abroad as an international student from Japan and it made me feel so much better. Although I will keep trying my hardest, my starting point is different from everybody else, and I do not have to rush. The only rival is myself. So I will continue to develop as a learner everyday. ◡̈⃝
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)