Lucky White Girl

Economics from below

Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus wins Nobel Peace Prize, warns of the dangers of neoliberal economic globalization:

"Challenging economic theories that he learned as a Ph.D. student at Vanderbilt University, in Nashville in the 1970s, he said glorification of the entrepreneurial spirit has led to “one-dimensional human beings” motivated only by profit" (from the NY Times article)

(It was the "challenging economic theories that he learned as a PhD student" part that caught my eye!

Citizens are activists are citizens.

I was reading the last book of the semester this past week and having trouble getting into it for some reason even though it was a book called "Transnational Protest and Global Activism" and it was about the global justice movement.  (It even called it that "the global justice movement" not the "anti-globalization movement" which I appreciated immensely.  That "anti-globalization" term irks me to no end.  I think because it so effectively obscures both the phenomena and the popular reactions against it that it's hard to have a coherent debate about it!)

Anyway, it was a collection of essays by these various sorts of scholars who were all trying to understand/analyze/explain the (relatively) recent manifestations of the global justice movements (Seattle in '99, Prague, Cancun, Miami etc.).  Mostly it was pretty dull reading for my taste.  They didn't really tell me anything I didn't know and other than feeling a little weird for being (or having been) part of the social phenomena they were studying I didn't find the book useful at all. 

Now it's not readily apparent that the term "activist" is problematic.  I used to call myself an activist.  No big deal.  But reading this book and its descriptions of these sorts of people known as activists got me thinking.  Even though the authors were (relatively) sympathetic, they were unwittingly reproducing a conservative framework by using the terms and definitions they used, which were terms and definitions taken from the social movements literature.

To explain, we can examine volume editor Donatella della Porta’s definition of social movements as “composed of networks of groups and activists, with an emerging identity, involved in conflictual issues, using mainly unconventional forms of participation” (177) beginning with the term “activist”, which presumably refers to people who take political action.  Democracies theoretically are based upon political participation by the masses; they require such participation or they cease to be democracies.  Activists then, are citizens who participate in the democratic process.   Anyone who at least goes to the polls on election day is an “activist”.  The inclusion of the phrase  “involved in conflictual issues” is redundant.  Examining and debating issues is the job of the citizenry which is just another way of saying (again) that they are politically active, (not to mention that the term “conflictual” has negative connotations).

But she goes further to say “unconventional forms of participation”.  That creates a distinction between “activist” and “citizen”.  Activists aren’t just politically active they are “unconventionally” so.  But who decides what is a “conventional” way of being politically active and what is an “unconventional” way?  Is letter-writing unconventional?  How about organizing a sit-in?   Today's unconventional is tomorrow's convention.  It is irrelevant whether a mode of political participation is conventional or unconventional.  It’s all political phenomena.

The separation of the adjective “active” from the concept of “citizen” is political.  One is a passive noun with connotations of obedience, moderation and responsibility.  The other is active, with connotations of abnormality, aggression (or at least assertiveness), excess and irresponsibility.  Della Porta’s definition including the use of “unconventional forms of participation” reinforces this impression and privileges some forms of political action over others.  This is a mistake.  There's no empirical evidence to justify doing this.  It's purely arbitrary and it's immensely disempowering to divorce the notion of action from the concept of citizenship.  It's inherently undemocratic.

In contrast, if we look at understanding the popular uprisings against neoliberal economic globalization and its effects in terms of democratic participation on a global level, there are fewer conundrums to try to figure out.  It’s not hierarchical and organized because we wouldn’t expect the random reactions of a democratic populace to be hierarchical and organized.  If the people speak and act in a relatively unified way it’s not necessarily because there is a “social movement” but because they have similar interests --in this case, because all are hurt in some way by the globalization of capitalism.  So of course there are New York feminists in league with unionists in Michigan in league with environmentalists in Germany in league with campesinos in Chiapas.  They are all together not because they've suddenly figured out a new way to organize a global movement but because they are all are responding to the multi-faceted face of neoliberal economic liberalization (global capitalism).

In other words, globalized capitalism contains the seed of its own destruction and this is it!

So is this just some purely academic debate?  Who cares what a bunch of academics think?  What does this mean for us, for regular old people?  It means we have to normalize dissent.  We have to --by our own language-- bring action back into the concept of citizenry.  In a participatory democracy citizenship is inherently active!

We who take political action are not activists.  We are citizens.  We are not radicals disillusioned with "conventional" means of protest (voting) driven to politics by other means (street protests).  We are citizens doing exactly what citizens are supposed to do and whatever tool of political action we choose to use in a given situation (vote, write letters, organize a sit-in or commit civil disobedience, even stage an overthrow of the government) doesn't matter.  Political action is political action and human beings have used all sorts of means over the years; it's all political.  Doesn't mean there can't be disputes over which tactic is appropriate at any given time in any given situation.  Morality and strategical questions will come into consideration with each one.  But to make a distinction, to privilege some forms of political action over others --or worse to separate the connotation of action from the concept of citizen-- is erroneous, inaccurate and undemocratic.

I passed! (POST-MARTINI UPDATE!!)

Well, it's done. I did it.  It's over.  I passed.

How do I feel?  Well... it's complicated.  And it's not like you'd expect.  I'm not jumping for joy or anything.  The most positive emotion I feel right now is relief. 

I guess it sorta has to sink in...

I think I'll feel different when (if?) I get a job.  Until then there's still too many unknowns in my life right now.  I just don't know what's going to happen.  I think I need to take that spiritual retreat I mentioned below... and think about what I'm going to do next.

POST-MARTINI UPDATE

I feel a lot better now.  Amazing what alcohol can do!!!  haha... no really I went out with just two of my old friends.  I didn't want a whole crowd of people, just two old friends I could talk to... you know people who would understand if/why I didn't feel totally elated or anything.  They understood.  And I think maybe I know why part of the reason may be that I feel a little sad. 

It's because it's over.  It's done.  I finished something and now there's no more of it.  I always feel a little sad when something's over.  And also because this isn't just any something.  It's a big something.  I guess this happen a lot in this town but this degree was the reason I came to Gainesville.  And now it's done.  And while that doesn't necessairly mean that I don't have a reason to stay, in my case, it does. 

Things are different for me now here.  It's not like before.  When I left Gainesville to go to Colombia, it was really hard for me to leave.  I had such a strong community here.  I felt so attached.  My life was here.  Now... well... I don't know.  It's just different for some reason.  I still have friends here sure, but something's different.  That tie that kept me here even when I was in Colombia --the same tie that made me come back when the Colombia thing was done-- that's not here this time.  This time the major reason I'm here was the degree.  And now that's finished. 

And so I probably won't stay.

This is not news, really.  I knew this all the time.  But it never felt so real as it did now.  Before it was always contingent on me actually finishing the degree. 

And this afternoon, I pretty much did that.  They all shook my hand and said congratulations, Barb.  I passed.  And so I will turn in two more papers, take one last final exam and walk out of here.  My adventure into gradschool-land over.  I will probably never go back.  But i know now that it won't be because I couldn't.  If you asked any of my high school teachers what they thought my chances were of getting into college, much less through it and into grad school... they would've shaken their heads.  I was in the bottom 50% of my class.  If it hadn't been for entering and winning that art scholarship (which wasn't even my own idea!) I can't see how I ever would've gotten into college.  Maybe a junior college eventually, but... I don't know.  I wish my 8th grad math teacher could see this.  I forget his name.  oh right.  Mr. Bird (he was stuck in the 70s before it was cool; we always made fun of him), remember me?  You nearly flunked me.  You thought I was overly emotional, brooding.  (I was a teenager!  It was my job to brood!).  You never thought I'd graduate from high school and today I got my Master's degree.  You never can tell, can you?  Life's funny that way.  A freakin' MA.  How'd ya like that??

In anticipation of the oral defense

Ok, so if they ask me about my views on the third debate or what I think about positivism and the empirical method as a means of knowing the world I'm going to say --wait, wait, wait, they're not going to ask it like that!  They're going to say something like.. "well, how is your theory on post-positivist feminist approaches falsifiable?" 

No, no, that's not right either.  Oh man I don't know what they're going to say to me on Monday.  I have no friggin' idea!  But let's assume they ask something akin to the above and they want me to give them a short concise defense of post-positivist feminist epistemology.  I'm going to say that...

The problem with positivism and empirically based social science is that it separates the knower both from the object of study and from the social context in which both are located.  It intentionally ignores relationships that exist between all three (knower, object and world).  To assume that 1.) those relationships can be safely ignored without losing any accuracy in how we understand those things and 2.) That any of those things can be truly separated from their environments require one to take a great leap of faith, which indeed is very unscientific.  There is no evidence at all to support the idea that such separations can take place.  In this sense post-positivist methods are actually more scientific than positivist methods.

Empirical methods of science work for some things like understanding how our genes construct our physical bodies but for understanding how our minds construct our social bodies, another way of knowing is required.  This should not be surprising to think that the entire world cannot be studied using a single methodology.  The scientific method will teach us very little about God, love or the meaning of the Holocaust.

Positivist based empiricism works by operationalizing and isolating objects for the purposes of studying their effects.  But we need to recognize that some things aren’t so easily operationalizable and when we try to force those things into those particular methodologies it’s like forcing a square peg into a round hole.  It may lead us to some sort of conclusion but will it be an accurate or methodologically sophisticated one?  Such methodologies misplace the purpose of scientific investigation.  They try to force the world to fit into their theories instead of fitting their theories around the world.  When we encounter unoperationalizable phenomena we can ignore it and pretend it doesn’t exist but that doesn’t make it go away.  A better strategy is to recognize it and develop more advance methodologies that can better encompass those particular phenomena.  This is the more sophisticated and scientific response.

Okay, okay that's good.  That's fine.  It could be better (more comprehensive) but it's okay.  They won't fail me if I say that.

What else?

What if they say something like... "you characterized the third debate as a 'dialectical tension between hegemonic discourses and various subversive challengers'.  Can you elaborate on that?"

Surely.  I characterized the predominant IR theories of realism and idealism as hegemonic discourses because they have effectively ruled or defined the discipline for most of its existence.  The problem with such hegemony is that it narrows the range of thinkable thought.  Certain assumptions of both are taken as exogenously given, unquestionable.  They begin the conversation from a particular point, logistically.  The emergence of  alternative schools of thought are healthy challengers that allow for the questioning of those assumptions.  They move the conversation back to earlier logistical points, questioning those exogenously given assumptions and widening the scope of the debate.  This dialectical process is what allows theory to move forward, grow more sophisticated and nuanced, by pushing the boundaries of hegemonic thinking.  Moreover, critical theories specifically challenge mainstream theories by questioning who benefits from thinking about the world in a particular way.  It's another example of questioning the unquestionable.  By questioning the purpose of theory --something the hegemonic discourses take for granted-- we can unearth the power dynamics that lie beneath the surface and are hidden by unreflective and unjustified claims to objectivity and neutrality.

Excellent!  I hope they ask me that one!  What else... what else... (If you haven't caught on yet, I'm using the blog to help me study for my defense --which is Monday at 3pm, if you want to know, maybe you can send some good vibes my way! hint hint!--  I figure Lucky White Girl has seemed kind of useless to me lately with me being so distracted with other things (my garden, my photography hobby etc.)so I thought I might as well make use of it somehow.  I'm going to go back to studying now so feel free to stop reading if you're not interested in the details of a comprehensive exam in International Relations! haha)...

Here's a good one:  "In your written response you talked about the different bases wherein postmodernists and critical theorists both reject the notion of objectivity.  Can you explain what the epistemological or methodological effects would be of each approach?" [oh my god, they wouldn't ask me something like that would they?  jesusmary, motherofgod, I hope not!!! But if they do...]

Ok.  Sure.  Postmodernists reject the notion of objectivity because they reject the notion of a singular unitary monolithic Truth or Reality while critical theorists reject the notion of objectivity because they are interested in the underlying power dynamics.  The difference is that while the former is an epistemological rejection the later is an ontological one.  The methodological effects would be similar: a rejection of empirical scientific methods and an embrace of alternative epistemologies and methodologies.  Both would be interested in examing other ways of knowing the world.  The difference is that the postmodernists would not place any truth claims on those alternative ways while critical theorists --or more accurately standpoint theorists-- would.  They would claim that because of the influence of power on different ways of knowing we can privilege some standpoints over others as having a more accurate view of those particular power plays.  Which is a normative truth claim, legitimating some knowledges over others.

Dang.  I should drink massive doses of caffeine more often! haha... Only problem is I'm going to have to leave the room at least 5 times to go pee!

Okay that's enough.  I think I'm starting to feel better about things.  I can do this.  I know I can!

Who's studying who? And where? And when? And how?

I spoke to two of my profs today.  It went well.  It was interesting.  I went to set up my committee again since 2 of 3 of the profs that were on it are gone this semester.  But I also wanted to feel out their perspectives on my prospects for further schooling (i.e. getting into and succeeding in a PhD program somewhere eventually). 

One said that the biggest obstacle that would impede me from getting into a good program would be that Incomplete grade I mentioned below.  It made my GPA fall from a 3.8 to a 3.3.  Not good.  "Remember a C is failing in gradschool" (She always says that; it's sorta like her slogan).  She asked about my GRE scores and I couldn't remember them but I said I guess they were good enough to get in here and she said that's true (UF's a pretty good school for what it's worth).  She said the most important thing would be to explain that incomplete.  "Tell them what your GPA would've been without it".  And also I might find a program that's less numbers-focused, especially if I end up studying in South America.  "Maybe your life story would be qualification enough". 

Overall, I felt like the talk with her was very positive.  She's very kind and extremely supportive.  I'm kicking myself for not having taken a class with her earlier.  (I'm in a class with her for the first time this semester).  I think my gradschool experience would've been entirely different if I had hooked up with her my first semester.

The other prof, whom I've known for a lot longer, didn't ask about my GPA (so he may not know how low it is) said that my biggest impediment to doing a docorate would be the same one that caused me to take so long to finish my MA: it's a huge commitment, he said.  "It's like a full-time job".  You have to be fully involved in it.  I know.  I haven't been fully involved here.  I started out being fully involved.  Full-time student, eating, drinking and breathing academics.  No friends outside the department.  No life outside of it either.  I hated it.  I got A's and B's that semester but after that I said no more full time.  Better to have a balanced life.  Community.  Friends.  Even work.  But it has taken me six years to finish.

The other thing he said, which was so interesting I kept thinking about it afterwards in the library was his reaction to my idea of studying outside of the country.  Or specifically studying IR (lnternational Relations) outside of the country.  Basically, he said don't do it and expect to get a job in this country.  Unless out of the country means Oxford or Cambridge.  Then he told me about his trip to China a couple years ago (one of his books got translated into Chinese) and he said he was asking around there about what is International Relations for them in China ('cause it's interesting to see how people in different countries view this field which is very US dominated, ya know?) and he said that he found out that they were reading Waltz and Keohane and all the same (US) theorists we read here.  So, don't assume that studying IR in another country means that their version of it wouldn't be just "an American import".  I told him I thought I'd be sensitive to those kinds of things since the whole point of studying elsewhere to be to gain a wider perspective than we tend to get here (we read pretty much just academics in the US and Canada with an occaisonal Brit or German thrown in).  But later on, as I said, I kept thinking about this (about his reaction, about how no one here in the US would hire me if I studied IR anywhere in the majority(third) world and I decided that it was all the more reason why I should want to do so!  Here's my revelation:

I want to study US (the US and us, the people, the phenomena of Empire) from the perspective of the Majority World (as much as it's possible for me to do so). 

You see normally, in this field, the more common thing to do is to sit here within the US and study other people's countries.  So we read books about Africa written by some "Africanist" who is some dude in the US talking about "failed" African states!!  What's wrong with this picture???  Other disciplines like sociology, cultural studies and lit theory are shocked to find that most IR people don't even consider this to be problematic!

Mine is a very Marxist (specifically, standpoint-ish) view which is probably why it might sound so radical in my field, but the point is... I think it's interesting that there's such a huge gap in this field and I think it's interesting that its foundations are so shakey theoretically for so many reasons and most of them don't even notice.  I just see a lot of potential here, ya know.  And I'd like to examine it more.  That's all.

Other than that, as for PhD work, he said the big thing is writing skills; they're hard to come by.  I said I felt quite confident in my writing skills, it was my person-to-person intercommunication skills that can sometimes be lacking.  He said that's relatively easy to overcome so I took that as a good sign.

So the upshot is, well, there still might be some possibilities for such a career path in the future.  And there are some interesting things to think about as far as me doing IR for another significant chunk of my life.  It's something to think about.

Hey! Look what I found!

Spectrezine is a radical journal of the European Left, with a global perspective. Beginning as a print magazine in 1997, Spectrezine has been an online journal for the last four years and now, in our latest redesign, incorporates a weblog...

That's where I found this very helpful review of one of the books on my syllabus, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy by a couple of self-admitted post-Marxists (?!) who use Gramsci to make some sort of significant ontological break with Marxism that I don't understand.  Sounds like a bunch of postmodernist bunk to me but I'm tryin' to keep an open mind! haha...

Also latest translation: God, Taxes and Iraq: On the upcoming US mid term elections (El Tiempo, Colombia)

 

"Philosophers are forever interpretting history; the point is to change it"

I was really glad to read this in one of my articles this week:

'disciplinary neo-liberalism'... in which global institutions press national governments to accept the dictates of neo-liberal conceptions of the state, society and economy...[This] analysis focuses on how transnational capitalist development, state structures and international economic institutions interact to generate a particular form of global hegemony and associated inequalities of power, resources and opportunities.  ...

This is perfectly compatible with the realist argument that states often pursue their own agenda and act independently of dominant class forces, although it is a clear invitation not to exaggerate the autonomy of most states, especially under moder conditions of capitalist globalization which compel most of them to respect the power of global financial markets and institutions.  (Linklater, 1995)

Realists say power matters.  Marxists say economic power matters.  I don't see what the difference is.  Economic power is military power.  We only differ in our normative judgements of the system.  Realists study power in order to make the current unequitable system function more smoothly and Marxists study it in order to change it.  I'm no expert but it seems like kind of a no-brainer to me.   Any thoughts?

notecards.

Notecards.  I have finally resorted to using notecards to study for my upcoming comprehensive exam.  I've never used notecards before.  In fact, I'm not that much of a believer in studying.  Pay attention all semester and get into the subject matter enough and you don't need to, generally.  But people have me scared enough about the comps to want to change years of bad/non-existant study habits... ergo me and my notecards.  I started making them last semester. 

I picked one up today and I swear-I-am-not-making-this-up, it says:
"Epistemological effects of the structure/agency debate"
What the f--k??  Jesus!  Know what the answer is???

"Liberalists and realists believe that structure determines behavior (agency)
Constructivists says that structure and agency are mutually constitutive."

[rolls eyes]  I knew that.

third gear.

I not only lead a double life, I lead a triple life.  There are three versions of me: the Spanish version, the regular English version and the academic English version.  Each version comes with its own vocabulary, diction and manner of thinking.  I try to blend them as much as I can but really what happens is I feel this tremendous culture shock when shifting from one to the other.  I had barely shifted back into one when I had to shift into another today.

Class is good.  I think I'm going to like it.  It's IPE, international political economy and it's taught in English which makes things simpler! haha... We'll skip the story about how I was at least half an hour late, the class seems like a very broad overview of IR.. in fact, now that I think about it, it seems like IR Theory but with more emphasis on the economics side of things.  Anyway, the good news is, you know how often on the first day of class you have to pick which weeks (i.e. what topics) you want to present on (we always have to do presentations).  So I'm happy because I got my first choice: feminism. I missed my second choice Marxism and my third Gramscism but that's okay because Marxism I know a lot about already and Gramsci's really difficult stuff.  I ended up with constructivism and something new that I don't know much about sociological institutionalism.  I like my topics.  One I know a lot about (guess which!), one I need to know more about for my comps and I sorta like anyway (constructivism) and the third well, just sounded interesting and I know nothing about it.

RESOLUTION: I am not going to buy any books this semester.  Really.  I'm going to spend a lot more time in the library using the books on reserve, and online reading the free electronic versions of them instead of buying them.   This is my last semester I have enough IR books.

I DID IT!!!

Oh. My. God.  I'm actually done.  I did it!  30 pages.  "Anarchy and Power in International Relations/hips" is finally here.  A full 17 hours before it's due! 

This one was a doozy.  Not like the other one that just seemed so straightforward, it wrote itself.  This one, I tried to do too much I think: present an overview of post-positivist feminist epistemologies, a brief summary of the history of the IR field and a review of some of the major feminist critiques all before finally getting around to THE POINT which was basically my own critique: that the whole anarchy assumption is a load of crap.

Wow.  I feel like I just gave birth or something. It was a lot of work and a long time in the making and now here she is: my baby.  Not that she's finished or anything.  I really have to do some more research, add some pre-emptive responses to some critiques I can kinda foresee my professors making, maybe organize it a bit better and revise this one part where I cited this old article I found from the 80s that made a very similar (but substantively different!) point.  But generally.  She's finished enough for tomorrow.  THANK GOD.

This paper really was different.  I didn't feel like I was just trying to fill up space to get the required number of pages.  Actually I was trying to condense to fit it all in and keep it from being overwhelming.  But it wasn't that I was using too many words, I was using too many ideas and not enough words and it was still too long.  But I think I did in the end.  I think more or less, it's there.  It's a 30 page paper and dammit if this ain't a thesis material I don't know what is!

sheesh.  anyone want to hear about anarchy and power in international relations/hips?

And the decision is...

... okay, so it wasn't a hard decision.  It's a 3 month paid internship with Habitat for Humanity in Chile.  They pay my airfare and living expenses plus a $2000 stipend!  How can I pass that up?  Plus it's good resume experience.  I'm gonna be on the job market here soon.  I gotta think about these things.  And 3 more months will really solidify my Spanish skills.  And dude.  It's Chile.  They have an awesome new president.  They have mountains.  They have the driest place on the planet. And it's the birthplace of Pablo Neruda.

I gotta go to Chile.

barb. 

in Chile. 

barb in Chile ?

yeeeeeaah.... okay.

Great/Awful news!

Ok, remember that internship I talked about applying for way back towards the end of last year? 

And that interview I practiced for a few months ago?

Well, yesterday they sent me an email saying I wasn't selected.  But that's okay because I only felt badly for like 2 seconds and then breathed a big sigh of relief.  I sorta like the idea of having the summer OFF.  Plus GIL and I are in a weird space of re-evaluating our relationship and doing a lot of personal work which I think requires a certain amount of personal space and reflection time.  Not doing the internship would fit in real well with that.  Having a whole summer to re-evaluate where I am in my life, how I feel about my relationship with my significant other, where I want to be going with everything. 

Plus part of me looks forward to a summer off because it's been a long time since I've had time to read for fun.  I have a stack of fiction books I want to go through that I got at the last library book sale and another stack of non-fiction books on non-IR stuff (racism, some mainstream feminist stuff I never got around to etc.).  It would be really nice to spend the summer reading and thinking and emoting, wouldn't it?  So i was relieved that I didn't get the internship.  It made my life easier.

So that's why I feel conflicted now that I've gotten a second email, basically saying that the first was a mistake.  They did pick me after all.  Habitat for Humanity picked me to go to either Chile or Paraguay.  I have to formally accept by WEDNESDAY!  Oh my.  My life just got suddenly a lot more complicated.  (funny, I hear that lives have a tendency to do that on ya!)

International Relationship Work

Ok, forget what I said before (if you saw it, I already took the first version of this post down).  Here's my real introduction, which I think makes a good essay in and of itself.

On International Relationship Work

When I chose to study International Relations (IR) I did it without really understanding much about the field itself.  I simply knew that I was interested in the big questions of war and peace.  I read the newspaper and saw that war and violence were everywhere and I wanted to understand more about the terrible situation that the world is in and how we might begin to change it.  I discovered that an MA in IR was the degree I would need to work for the United Nations or some small human-rights focused non-governmental organization (NGO) and that’s how I, an English Literature undergraduate, ended up studying international relations.

When I actually began to study this thing called IR, I learned, however, that it was very different from what I expected.  The vast majority of my classmates wanted to work for either the State Department or were connected to the military in some way.  Human rights were barely on the horizon.  I stood out in various ways.  I was one of only three women in the incoming class and far from being a young Margaret Thatcher or Madeline Albright my politics were considered downright radical and my methods unconventional.  Not feeling like I was ever taken seriously I felt shoved into a role of providing comic relief for the more “serious” discussions of my (mostly male) classmates; discussions that were based on premises I didn’t even believe in.  Needless to say, I soon became discouraged and when I discovered a way to do my original goal (work for human rights) without the degree I left the academic program to go to Colombia.

I loved it.  It was hard and painful work but it was also beautiful, important, and meaningful.  I spent a year there and formed new relationships and friendships.  The experience left me even more curious about a different kind of international relations: that is, relationships between people across borders.  I wondered why is it that this also is not part of the IR I encountered in grad school?         

I remain committed to human rights, to holding governments and other violators accountable, to supporting and encouraging the work of indigenous and international communities to organize and resist such violence and to be a good ally to other members of the human family.  I consider the defense and promotion of human rights and the pursuit of social justice to be “relationship work”.  Relationships amongst people are the foundation of human society.  War is the most extreme form of broken relationships on a large scale.  There is something problematic with a field that does not –that cannot– see critiques that point out inherent weaknesses within its own theoretical underpinnings.

If the goal of any academic discipline is a greater understanding of the world around us, a fearless questioning, even of our most fundamental beliefs, is essential.  And yet theory must go further even than that.  Investigation and explanation without critique is not neutral.  It is to further entrench and justify the current power differentials of our world. In that light, this paper will take a critical theory approach to critiquing some of the basic premises of the realist school of thought within International Relations, including who the major actors are in the study of IR, the nature of the global environment in which they exist and what defines security for them.

Un poco de practica

Bueno, so.  I have this interview this afternoon for a 3 month internship in Costa-Rica working with Habitat for Humanity.  I think the job entails me interviewing recipients of Habitat homes to find out what worked for them, what didn't work for them and how happy they were with the whole process and what improvements could be made for the future.  It sounds like a great way to spend the summer, doesn't it?  But I'm gonna hold off on getting too excited about it until we see how things go with the interview.

The interview.  Someone's going to call me this afternoon.  It's in Spanish, which I haven't really been using lately, but I still think I'll do okay.  I'm practicing this morning though, trying to get my Spanish ears back on.  I'm watching a telenovela.  It's pretty silly.  I want to do something else.  So I sat out on the back steps in the morning sun eating grapefruit and went over what I thought the interview should sound like in my head.  It went like this:

[phone rings]
Me: Hello?
Her: Hola, se encuentra Barbara?
Me: Si, si, soy yo.  Es Snra____?  Hola, mucho gusto.  Como esta?  Como es Costa Rica?
     --Si, lo conozco.  Es bellisima.  Me encanta.  Estaba alla hace casi diez anyos, en '97. 
     --Estudiando espanol.  Con la universidad.  Si, en San Jose.  No me recuerdo el nombre de la lugar.  Instituto de algo.... lol
     --Si, senora.  Si, si.  Gracias.
     --Bueno.
     --Donde aprendi espanol?  Bueno, por la mayor parte, aprendi en Colombia.  Lo de Costa Rica solo fue el equivalente de dos semestres de la idioma por la universidad.  Y despues fui a Guatemala por tres meses y aprendi mas alla en la escuela Minerva en Quetzaltenango hasta que llegue en Colombia en 2003.
     --Que hice en Colombia?  Bueno, estaba trabajando por un grupo que hice accompanimiento internacional por comunidades amenezadas.  En este caso fue en Barrancabermeja donde hicimos un accompanimiento de comunidades rurales que estaba intentando de regresar a sus tierras a pesar de la guerra.  Tambien accompanabamos grupos y defendores de derechos humanos en la ciudad.  Creian que si tuvieran una presencia internacional en el area estarian mas seguros.  El accompanimiento funciona asi.  Las violaciones de derechos humanos pasan cuando gobiernos creian que el mundo no esta mirando entonces somos una organizacion de vigilancia.
     -Si, me gusto.  De verdad a veces lo extrano el trabajo.  Es trabajo muy importante.  Quien no quisiera sentir util?  Me sentia muy util alla.  Las personas alla son incredibiles, hacen lo imposible y los ayudamos en que ellos son mas seguros de hacer lo que tienen que hacer cuando estamos con ellos.  Si, si, me encanto el trabajo.
     --Porque sali?  Pues, sali por varios razones.  Uno, despues de un anyo estaba super-cansado.  Fue trabajo significante y importante pero duro.  Muy duro.  Estaba cansada.  Pero al mismo tiempo sabia que quise continuar en esa linea de trabajo (aunque seria con otra organizacion) entonces decidi de terminiar con mis estudios para que pudiera hacer mas de este tipo de trabajo en el futuro.  Iba a necesitar un post-grado en relaciones internacionales y ahora solo tengo un semestre mas y me gradue en el otono.
     --Despues eso? Pues, espero que encuentro trabajo.  Estoy mirando Human Rights Watch. Ojala!
     --Si, senora.  Espero que si.
     --Si, senora.  Yo tambien.  Muy bien.  Muy bien.  Bueno.  Muchas gracias!  Gracias!  Que la vaya bien!  Ciao!

What do you think?

UPDATE: She's supposed to call any minute now!!!  eeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!! the phone's ringing!

UPDATE #2:  OMG!  It went well.  I really think it went well.  She was sooo nice.  She spoke so clearly I understood every word.  She asked some questions I wasn't expecting though.  Like did I know SPSS (and I got to say yes we just used it in my Statistics class last semester) and had I ever done any work with focus groups and I said I did in my methodology class (which was 5 years ago but I'm definitely going to review my notes now!).  But she told me a lot about the program and now I have a better idea of what they're doing.  Oh and she said this year they're doing it differently.  They're doing one week training in Costa Rica but then they're sending us to other countries (Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Brazil) to do the actual work so did I have a preference?  (Do I have a preference?  Sheeeeeeiiiit.  Dude, just send me anywhere!)  So I think it went really well.  She said they'll let me (or actually the University) know the first or second week of April.

Wow.  I can't believe I might actually get this internship!  This is like, an Actual Job.   Wow.  An Actual Professional Job (APJ).  [For those who don't know, an APJ is a job that 1.) pays Actual Money and 2.) requires some sort of specialized training to get.  I've only ever worked minimum wage type jobs and done volunteer work.  I have never, EVER had an APJ. --well, except for the Colombia project.  That does fit the description of APJ but still...]  Hey, I'm 30 and I just might get my first APJ this summer!  (Hell, my friend Pat didn't get his first professional job til he was 36 so I'm waaaay ahead of him.)  This is soo exciting.  And it'll definitely help me get a real REAL APJ when I finally, FINALLY graduate! 

UPDATE #3: My parents are gonna freak when I tell them I'm finally finishing school and getting a real job!  (I won't tell them the part about how now I'm sorta eyeing some PhD programs).  But I gotta put in a coupla years working first.  Then I'll start my PhD.  Oh wait!  I forgot to have kids!  I can't believe I forgot to have children!!!  When am I going to do THAT??? 

On a FEM 101 prereq

Maybe I'm just being too sensitive but recently when I come away from that trade and human rights law class I sorta feel like I don't really get something.  Or that they don't really get me.  Or that we don't get each other.  Is it just a law school thing?

Today for example, we're talking about trade and women and whether "women" is a valid category or not when looking at trade issues.  We all have to write these response papers, and turn them in by Sunday night.  They're informal little things, just our reactions to the readings for that week but I end up putting a lot of time and thought into them and find them really helpful.  We all post them to our class website so everyone can read them.  So I read other people's responses and was kinda disappointed and frustrated with what is really just a lack of basic knowledge of feminisms and feminist analyses in general (overwhelmingly by the men in the class).  And this is nothing new.  In my field (IR) in the basic theory classes, our professors usually toss in a week of feminist perspectives on international relations.  They never do it justice and in the mostly-male dominated field this one week is often the student's only encounter with feminist theory.  Needless to say, they usually don't get it and they walk away thinking that it's something much simpler than it is and they easily dismiss it and never again look at anything with a feminist label on it.

This really ticks me off.

So in my response paper I said that the problem with trying to fit "women" into a trade law class in one week is that it's such a huge discussion.  There's so much very basic background information we have to fit in because not everyone has had a basic women's studies class so they don't know all the different branches of feminism and feminist perspectives and all that and that's very limiting.  I gave a couple of exampes of different kinds of feminist perspectives just to make my point.  I said requiring a basic women's studies class as a prereq would probably help.

Ok, I can see how that might rub some people the wrong way.  It might sound really snotty and arrogant, but it's a perfectly valid criticism.  These guys wouldn't feel nearly as comfortable expressing an opinion on ecology or economics without having first taken a basic course or done some preliminary readings in those areas and yet they march into class with these very firmly set opinions on "women" and feminist analyses without having the faintest idea what feminist theorys are.  To me, that's the real arrogance.

Anyway, I go into class and one of the profs (there's two -a human rights law one and a trade law one) makes this comment that "whoever wrote that little summary of feminism" that she would've taken 40 pages and not just three paragraphs to do something like that. ---??? 

[stutter, stutter] I didn't--!!!  I wasn't--!!!  What the--???  [throws up hands] 

That is SO unfair!  That SO misses my point!  My point was precisely that!  I didn't try to summarize feminism.  I said we should have a prereq.  I said... I said... forget it.  I said what I said.  I was clear in what I wrote.  It's a perfectly valid critique. 

Anyway I was cool in class.  I didn't say anything and the class goes on to have this discussion on whether "women" is a proper category for discussions of trade and whether that's essentialist or not.  On whether we should look at women as a category, we had a range of answers from "duh! yes! we have to look at how women are affected by trade" to the WTO response: "flat out no! it's a non-issue.  Trade is gender-neutral". 

I suggested that we think about 'strategic essentialism', that we can hold that essentialist categories of "women" are inherently problematic BUT given eons of having the default of "humanity" mean men, we can use such essentialist arguments strategically to undo that tradition and go ahead and look at how trade affects "women".

Dead silence.  No response at all.  And then the next person who had their hand up said something else and it was like I'd never said a word.  Nothing.

F--king sh-t.  What's up with that?  I'm serious.  What the hell does that silence mean?  I don't know how to interpret that.  I'd much rather have folks disagree with me than give me no response at all.  I don't know how to handle non-response.  I wasn't actually pissed off in the class.  It's only now that I'm thinking about it that it's getting me mad.

I'm already over it.  I'm not gonna think about it anymore.  It's a stupid, petty thing.  I have better things to do.  Any comments?  Perspectives?  Am I too sensitive?

What is citizenship?

That was the question we tried to answer in class today.  The readings all addressed the impact of international trade laws on citizenship.  One article (by an economist) talked about how globalization is redefining notions of citizenship.  Which raises some interesting questions about the nature of the actors on the world stage: who they are (people, nation-states, corporations or international institutions?) and what rights and responsibilities they should have. She argues that neoliberal economic policies that favor transnational entities such as corporations and international organizations over national sovereignty effectively give them (these large transnational and international institutions) the "economic rights" originally meant to protect people.

I wrote a sorta long diatribe:

bell hooks made it thru grad school

I'm reading an early (1989) bell hooks book for class today, one I hadn't read before.  And it's been awhile since I read her, it's been years, and I think it's a rare author who can make you fall in love with them over and over again throughout a lifetime.  Every essay in her collection Talking Back is delicious.  I just luxuriate in them.  I've wanted several times to stop and write about nearly each one but my eyes will catch the title of the next and I greedily go on to devour that one.  No time to write.  But I'll just take a moment to say this one I just read, "black and female: reflections on graduate school" is so timely for me now, thinking about how I hate academia and why.  Even though I don't have those experiences of being a black female, the experiences I have of being who I am in grad school, affirm every word of what she says.  And as repulsive as I find this whole grad school experience it was that much harder for someone like her, a black woman talking about class and race and gender.  And yet she made it through.  She even suggested something very practical that I hadn't even thought of yet.  Moving.  She moved two or three times during her grad school experience.  You know, if she could do this, what do I have to complain about?  Maybe there is a program somewhere out there that I'd feel more comfortable in.  Maybe?

Equality. (Marxist vs. Feminist theory classes)

Hey, we're back, I had a little flurry of activity there trying to get some readings done and a short paper written in time for the feminist theory class I switched out the Marxism class for.  I found out today ,though, that mis-read the syllabus and read twice as much as I needed to!   Oh well, I'm a bit ahead, that's all.

But lemme tell you about this class!  I love it!!!  It's sooo great!  What a difference from last week's!  I am so glad I switched!  This is gonna be so much more fun and even more useful than the Marxism.  This is an elective, remember.  I ought to do something I really enjoy and feel comfortable with, ya know?  So the contrast was notable and significant enough that I have to write about it.

Demographics:

Marxist theory:
22 students, 4 of whom were women.

 

Advanced Feminist Theory:
10 students, 10 of whom are women.

Atmosphere:


competitively smart and witty bantering amongst students, general atmosphere somewhat tense and inhibited, super-evaluative and stress-ful

relaxed, cooperatively-smart atmosphere, dynamic conversations whose tone didn't change much from official class time to break time,

Classroom Conversation:

somewhat lecture-y but many (mostly male) students felt free to contribute; when they did it was in the style of friendly debate.

lead by professor but nearly all students felt free to contribute (although some more than others), general atmosphere of intellectual curiosity; class contributors built off what other students said; didn't attack what was said.

Work load: (technically the courses have pretty much the same requirements- class presentation, several short response papers, one 30 page research paper) but Fem theory doesn't seem like as much work.

Accessibility (rated in number of times I spoke)

Marxist theory: 0

Fem theory: 4

Level of difficulty of the readings:

difficult but also added difficulty of archaic word-usage and very different social context (19th century Europe)

difficult but more familiar social context and contemporary language usage (although one article was somewhat jargony)

I am so much happier.  Without all the icky dynamics of the Marxism class I am free to focus entirely on the readings.  If I don't have to prove myself to them, I can learn more from my fellow students.  Be affirming not be contrary.  [For example, today in fem theory when two women disagreed, I noticed that one went to great lengths to be reaffirming to the other while disagreeing with what she was saying.  How refreshing that is!  No one felt attacked or denigrated.]  Less energy spent on show means more energy to spend on the subject matter itself.  Which is why I think this class will ultimately be more useful.  I love it.  I am soooooo grateful.

We need another Roosevelt

Doing the readings for my trade and human rights law class I came upon this quote from FDR, about the "four freedoms".  It's used to illustrate how exceptional it was for a US president to embrace anything other that the individual-oriented civil and political rights.

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded
upon four essential human freedoms. The first is the freedom of speech and expression everywhere in the world. The second is the freedom of every person to worship God in his[/her] own way everywhere in the world. The third is the freedom from want, which translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear - which translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor- anywhere in the world.

This was cited in the notes to an article I read this morning called "Human Rights through a Gendered Lens: emergence, evolution and revolution" by my professor Berta Hernandez.  It goes on:

"Id. Later in his State of the Union message to Congress delivered January 11, 1944, President Roosevelt articulated many of these economic rights as part of his vision for a truly free United States of America. He noted that "true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence", that "[p]eople who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made..."

Can you imagine a US president saying that today?  My God!  Traditionally human rights have been grouped into two (and now three) categories: civil and political rights which are based in the Western tradition, especially the French and American Revolutions.  These are rights that protect individuals from their governments (also known as negative rights).  Their supposed opposites are social, cultural and economic rights which are like those Roosevelt was talking about above and they usually involve rights that governments owe to their people like the right to fair housing and a living wage.  They're rooted in the socialist tradition.  But I learned that there's a third category of rights now called solidarity rights, which are kinda collective or group rights: the right to self-determination, the right to be free of imperialism and colonialization, for example.  These come out of the majority (third) world tradition of newly independent countries.

But regarding those freedoms that Roosevelt was talking about... not exactly the ones Bush has in mind!

On quitting

Well, what's the point of having a blog if you're not honest about things?

I dropped the class. 

I'm not doing Marxist theory.

Why?  Because I'm a sh*thead.  No, really, for a coupla reasons. 

Journey into Marxism, Day 3

This is full immersion Marxism.  I eat, drink and sleep Marx.  (Really.  Last night I even dreamt about him!)  I have another 40 pages to read before 5 pm today so no time to be blogging.  I read the Manuscripts last night, learned about the four kinds of alienation, got totally lost when he started in on Hegel and then this morning read an article about anti-Semitism in the 1840s per Tony regarding yesterday's post on the essay On the Jewish Question.

whew.

I need another cup of coffee.  On to Fuerderbach (I swear I'm gonna learn to spell this guy's name by the end of the day today).  I really need help with Hegel so if anyone has suggestions please pass them on!

Journey into Marxism, Day 2

Actually we're way beyond Day 2 but I haven't been blogging about it.  Pshaw!  Technicalities.

We are starting off with some of Marx's early writings and by the first class meeting, tomorrow, we're supposed to have read On the Jewish Question, the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, the Theses on Feurback and German Ideology.

I have read On the Jewish Question and am just now starting the E&P Manuscripts.  I know I'm way behind but no time to worry about that now.

Just before we went to see that movie last night that sparked all that dialog in my head about intentionality I was finishing up the Jewish Question.  I had been just about to protest that I didn't see any real anti-Semitism in it until I got to the last coupla pages and there it was plain as day.  Throughout the essays he's responding to this guy, Baer, who was really anti-Semitic and they are discussing civil rights for Jewish people.  Baer says you can't give these people rights or "liberation" because they dont' know how to handle it (ok, I know I'm not doing justice to his argument but I'm skimming here to get to what I really want to say, which is) and Marx replies that it's not the Jews who are in need of liberation it's society that's in need of liberation from the Jews. 

First day Human Rights class

Wow, what a great class!  I am so psyched!  The profs seem very cool.  One's from trade law; one's from human rights law.  They just gave a brief overview this morning which was really simple and kinda redundant but that adds up to a reassuring first day.  Especially when you're taking a course outside your own department. If I'd had no idea what they were talking about, I woulda been intimidated and overwhelmed which is NOT a good thing.

I think this class is gonna be so useful.  I've already learned a lot just from the readings.  One thing that I was kinda new to me that I had never thought of before in this way was how both international trade laws and human rights laws were different reactions to the same thing (World War II).  The GATT (now part of the WTO) grew out of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1944:

From the Wikipedia article on Bretton Woods:

"Also based on experience of interwar years, U.S. planners developed a concept of economic security—that a liberal international economic system would enhance the possibilities of postwar peace. One of those who saw such a security link was Cordell Hull, the U.S. secretary of state from 1933 to 1944.¹ Hull believed that the fundamental causes of the two world wars lay in economic discrimination and trade warfare. Specifically, he had in mind the trade and exchange controls (bilateral arrangements) of Nazi Germany and the imperial preference system practiced by Britain (by which members or former members of the British Empire were accorded special trade status). Hull argued that:

[U]nhampered trade dovetailed with peace; high tariffs, trade barriers, and unfair economic competition, with war... if we could get a freer flow of trade... freer in the sense of fewer discriminations and obstructions... so that one country would not be deadly jealous of another and the living standards of all countries might rise, thereby eliminating the economic dissatisfaction that breeds war, we might have a reasonable chance of lasting peace.

Which turned out to not exactly be true, but that's what they thought at the time.

And of course also in the post-war years the international human rights law began to be formulated with the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

So the interesting thing to note here is given their shared history and interconnectedness why are these two areas so isolated from each other? 

Journey into Marxism, Day 1

Today is the first day of my journey into Marxist theory.  Which is a little misleading.  Marxism is so huge, you can't really study any of the social sciences today without running into something that derives from it.  We don't always recognize those Marxist roots, especially here in the West, but they're there and often even your average John and Jane Doe use Marxist theory without even realizing it.  It's just so pervasive and we're so used to it, it's hard to see.  But anytime you talk about the human ability to actively change history, for example, instead of just describing it, that's Marxism.  And when Zora Neale Hurston had Janie say at the end of Their Eyes Were Watching God, "Phoeby, you got tuh go there to know there" that's Marxism.  Actually it's Marxist-feminism which is an entirely different animal but we'll leave that alone for now.  So when I say it's the first day of my journey into Marxist theory what I mean to say is that it's my first day of my journey into classical Marxist theory, or Karl Marx's Marxist theory. 

One of my classes this semester is Marxist and Critical Theory which I'm taking because it's long been on my to-do list to read Marx in the original.  Marx is one of those heavy duty theory dudes that grad students say they've read but what they really mean is that they've read about him.  (Which is perfectly valid, by the way.  I don't have a problem with that.  Sometimes you need to do that.)  But I've always really wanted to actually read Marx directly and that's what I'm going to do this semester.

And to tell you the truth it's a little intimidating.  Last time I picked up something by Marx I left it for an easier to read Marx-ist.  Which I think is also okay.  I now have a good indirect knowledge of Marxism (from studying some of those Marxist derivatives) and I think that's worth something.  But before I start on all this reading I'm supposed to have done before the first day of the class next week Wikipedia is my best friend.  Their entries on Marx, Marxist theory, and dialectical materialism are amazingly straightforward and easy to read.  This is so helpful I recommend it to anyone about to tackle any one of philosophy's heavy hitters.

End of term

Yesterday was my last day of class.  I turned in my last 20 pages of homework for statistics and another paper (a really, really good one) for Security.  The paper was a great triumph because we read this really interesting book called Ecology of Fear about earthquakes in California and the different ways that we, as a society, have made decisions that make those natural disasters worse (sound familiar?).  So I had to think about where this book fit in the rest of the literature we read this semester.  I think it was the best paper I wrote all term.  Now all I have to do is study for my statistics final next week and write two more papers and I'm done.  I think I'll be hanging out at the local cafe, drinking lots of coffee, reading some good books and knitting some Christmas presents.  Aren't you jealous?