Last blog??
As I look at the syllabus for this section I realize that it is called science and criticism. It isn’t called what is the meaning of empire, or is Judith Butler’s book well written, it is called science and criticism. What we are supposed to be debating, or at least what I thought we are supposed to be debating is, whether or not IR is about explaining the world or critiquing it. Jesse gave his lecture and told us to critique the world, but mentioned that Prof. Jackson does not see IR this way. So I have to ask, where is this mythical show down between the Master and his Padwan? WHY ARE WE NOT DEBATING WHETHER IR IS A SCIENCE OR A TOOL FOR CRITIQUE?
Obviously Prof. Jackson takes an approach to teaching that can best be called the “So” approach. (http://veracity.univpubs.american.edu/weeklypast/041106/). While I happen to like this about him (I have taken him twice and enjoyed both classes very much) at some point or another I feel like we do need to grapple with this issue. I have written about it in my blog, but I really want to see how the class would handle this issue. But since the last debate starts next week I guess that won’t be happening. It’s sad really. I think it would have been interesting. I guess I will just have to conduct this debate with all the different voices in my head, or maybe find some free time and stop by office hours.
Matt Bank
posted by Matt Bank at 5:29 PM
5 Comments:
tear...
Sat Apr 22, 11:20:00 PM 2006
I think IR is can be both Matt. It depends on your approach and your goals. If you just want to know how the international system operates than you'll ask questions, like why did X event occur.
However, if you want to change things than you'll ask things like was X just or should X be allowed to occur again? You need the science in order to know X but you need the critique to decide what to do with it.
Thus, it all depends on what you want.
Sat Apr 22, 11:23:00 PM 2006
I understand where you are coming from John, and I see your point, but I still think that IR should only be a science. Biology explains life, psychology explains the mind, IR should explain the world. If you want to try to change the world I think it should be done somewhere else. The two fields would be close for obvious reasons but there should be some kind of line between them.
Matt Bank
Mon Apr 24, 03:42:00 PM 2006
Matt you are truly the wisest man of them all...
However, I disagree with your desire to split IR. It think there is IR the 'study of' where we try and find facts and how the international system worke and IR the 'practice of' where people go out and do stuff like diplomacy, trade, and religion.
This is no different than biology where scientists try and discern facts in the physical world like the human body needs X amount of such and such nutrient (read 'study of') and then go out and make recommendations about what foods we should and shouldn't eat (read 'the practice of').
The whole point of science is to create more precise, clear, and understandable facts from which to make decisions from. Thus, the two are tightly connected.
Mon Apr 24, 06:10:00 PM 2006
Comrad,
Yes biology does tell us what foods to eat but I think that better relates to IR telling us how to conduct foreign policy. A critical theory biology would tell us to have a seccond stomach. IR as a science can tell us how the world works and what to do with that information but when it starts to try to change the fundimental rules of the world (critical theory) I think it needs its own field.
Matt Bank
Tue Apr 25, 10:46:00 AM 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home