I once again couldn't figure out how to post on the actual blog...here it is again!
Overall, I would have to say that I found the second portion of the semester interesting because we moved away from more theories and generalities and dealt with specifics of different countries. At the same time, I found it harder to find a link between the various weeks. I thought the first portion of the semester was more fluid in my mind, whereas the second seemed various case studies put together. Some (therefore rather disjointed) thoughts and impressions from the second half of the semester: Regime type readings remain in my mind as probably most theoretical from the second portion of the semester. While I understand the overarching idea of hybrid regimes, etc. I know a lot of the technicalities are not clear in my mind with regards to difference between identified regime types, and need to go back to my notes and readings to do so… Postwar in all honesty was dense for me, and I’m a bit worried about all the details from those that I don’t know yet. But postcommunist lectures we covered are straightforward and organized in my mind so I hope that will suffice. I found the Elephant and Dragon interesting to read, and I am still not sure what side I take in terms of the “next big threat” as rising power since I found some compelling arguments for both countries. That said, I also question if the world is really becoming less unilateral and US hegemony is indeed declining; Japan posed an incredible threat in the 90s and caused a lot of hype similar to that of rise of China. I also see that the US has declined further in terms of resources and legitimacy in the international arena, but I wonder how much of the threat of rising China or India is real and how much of it is hype. During the last week, I thought a point from lecture that was new to me was the idea of finding rationality behind violence (as an institution), and not seeing it simply as reactionary to failure of a government. I saw this come up in an earlier blog post so I won’t elaborate, but I hadn’t really thought of it this way before. (As a sidenote, I liked the Migdal book and found it helpful in explaining concepts regarding state failure to reach its people etc.—and hope to go back to it for a reread in the next few days.) Also, another point made in class that I noted was the technicality of using terms like terrorists vs. freedom fighters vs. militants—that labels do matter, and interrogating labels to see the implication behind it. Overall, I really loved the class and I hope I am able to “see through the lens” of a social scientist…at least by the final! Best of luck with everyone gearing up for Friday :)
1 comment:
I once again couldn't figure out how to post on the actual blog...here it is again!
Overall, I would have to say that I found the second portion of the semester interesting because we moved away from more theories and generalities and dealt with specifics of different countries. At the same time, I found it harder to find a link between the various weeks. I thought the first portion of the semester was more fluid in my mind, whereas the second seemed various case studies put together. Some (therefore rather disjointed) thoughts and impressions from the second half of the semester:
Regime type readings remain in my mind as probably most theoretical from the second portion of the semester. While I understand the overarching idea of hybrid regimes, etc. I know a lot of the technicalities are not clear in my mind with regards to difference between identified regime types, and need to go back to my notes and readings to do so…
Postwar in all honesty was dense for me, and I’m a bit worried about all the details from those that I don’t know yet. But postcommunist lectures we covered are straightforward and organized in my mind so I hope that will suffice.
I found the Elephant and Dragon interesting to read, and I am still not sure what side I take in terms of the “next big threat” as rising power since I found some compelling arguments for both countries. That said, I also question if the world is really becoming less unilateral and US hegemony is indeed declining; Japan posed an incredible threat in the 90s and caused a lot of hype similar to that of rise of China. I also see that the US has declined further in terms of resources and legitimacy in the international arena, but I wonder how much of the threat of rising China or India is real and how much of it is hype.
During the last week, I thought a point from lecture that was new to me was the idea of finding rationality behind violence (as an institution), and not seeing it simply as reactionary to failure of a government. I saw this come up in an earlier blog post so I won’t elaborate, but I hadn’t really thought of it this way before. (As a sidenote, I liked the Migdal book and found it helpful in explaining concepts regarding state failure to reach its people etc.—and hope to go back to it for a reread in the next few days.)
Also, another point made in class that I noted was the technicality of using terms like terrorists vs. freedom fighters vs. militants—that labels do matter, and interrogating labels to see the implication behind it.
Overall, I really loved the class and I hope I am able to “see through the lens” of a social scientist…at least by the final! Best of luck with everyone gearing up for Friday :)
Post a Comment