Overall, I felt the debate both in our Activity and in class went well. Both teams did a good job articulating their points while maintaining their assigned POV. Personally, I found it a little overwhelming participating in the debate in class for two reasons. One being that I am not the most comfortable speaking in class, and the second being that it can be challenging to respond immediately to a prompt from a POV you may not necessarily agree with (for example, when asked to discuss from the liberal perspective how the end of slavery signaled a fundamental change).
I think the most notable distinction between the two perspectives in regard to fundamental change is the definition of fundamental change itself. However, in discussing this distinction, it further reinforced my affinity for the liberal perspective of change in the international sphere. We cannot discount the interconnectedness of states’ ideas, and the impact that this has on promoting a large-scale change in the international realm. One shift in an individual or group of individual states attitude towards a concept can have a snowball effect on the greater global picture.
Like Victoria mentioned in her reflective blog post, fundamental change is possible, but can happen at a “glacial pace.” This is why discussions on this topic can be so hard—it is difficult for us at times to even conceptualize a fundamental change in international relations because we may not see it for decades to come. The consequences of a change in states’ ideas may not come to fruition globally anytime soon, and as such, examining the relationship between the individual and the bigger picture becomes more challenging,
I also briefly wanted to touch on our discussion of the North Korea/US summit. As we were discussing its potential (or lack thereof) for encouraging change, I couldn’t help but think of the discussions I overhear in the bar I work at. I come from a relatively small town, with a majority conservative population. As a bartender, I overhear any mention of politics between customers and immediately brace for impact. Too many beers + conflicting opinions on politics = BAD. Anyway, my Monday night shift was filled with discussions of the upcoming summit and many praises for Trump for “getting this done!” I mentioned I was surprised he had time to do so with all the work he’s doing draining the swamp. They didn’t catch on to my sarcasm. I don’t have much of a point other than to say that, as students of international relations, I really appreciate that we can truly study these theories and form our opinions on the current political picture in a more well-rounded way than those who might only get their information from the media.
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with your last point! Although that might make those conversations you overhear at the bar even more frustrating....
In your post you refer to the "glacial pace" at which fundamental change may happen. I believe this is why realists look at history to show that, despite 4000 years of human interaction, we're still in this environment where states act (at times) like autonomous/impermeable actors. Because we can't look forward, we have to look back.
I think the argument a Liberal institutionalist could make is that maybe we're starting to see some of the results of a fundamental shift today. It might be too early to declare a total victory, but there are signs that change may be on the horizon. The success of the UN and the EU, the lack of a third world war, the interconnectedness of the actors (and the continuation of this trend) in the system - all could be indicators that a fundamental change may be underway.
Realists, on the other hand, would still be correct in claiming that actors still have an autonomous/impermeability to them. Examples can be seen in Brexit, the US pulling out of a climate accord, or the US claiming national security threats from its closest allies. So they are right at this juncture in time as well.
TL;DR: Might be true that a fundamental change is underway as Liberal Institutionalists claim. On the other hand, because all this happens at a "glacial pace", it's too early to say if this is a fundamental change or just a temporary/systemic adjustment and states could still continue to revert back to autonomous/impermeable units.