Analogies, as I'm sure we've all realized at this point, are incredibly helpful in simplifying otherwise incredibly complex concepts. This seemed to be "analogy week" between blog groups becoming countries and partitioning off "land" through tables and chairs and symbolizing world politics with children in a fourth grade classroom. While such representations cannot completely explain elaborate theories as there are so many intricate threads woven together in the delicate, tangled web of world politics, they can certainly aid in understanding. Personally, I found each exercise, at least initially, quite informative.
On Tuesday, I thought that by dividing up into separate countries with varying resources, it was easier to think and consider their perspectives. When all of the nations with few resources were able to join together, the model failed as such simple unity, I feel, would be difficult to actually achieve - especially in nations with unstable governments. This would require more compromise than occurred between the roommates and neighbors representing each nation. Representing is a key word as many people began to take the model much too literally, criticizing it's every fault. Models are not meant to encompass every last detail of the real world situation. While it is important to recognize a model's downfalls and shortcomings so that perhaps a more accurate model or analogy can be made, denouncing ideas yet providing no alternate suggestions is, in my (humble) opinion, uncalled for.
Said argument applies also to Friday's class in which we put the world into a fourth grade classroom, gave them (it) an assignment and stepped back to speculate the results. Most argued that Johnny and the skater boys would often - if not always - get their way simply because of their more populous group. This then relates to the U.S. since many feel that due to it's resources, economy, size, and government, the U.S. gets its way. In the classroom, the teacher has the ultimate authority; if conflict or absurd amounts of 'unfairness' arise, (s)he can step in before any true unruliness begins. Such authority does not exist in the world, nor should it. There is no way (as discussed in my -and many others'- previous blog) that all nationstates could agree upon one person, group, or country to create a hegemony (ender series anyone?) and have so much authority as they cannot even all agree upon environmental standards. Thus compromises must be made. True they are not always fair- honestly nothing is ever fair to everyone- but agreements can ease tension and allow countries to work together to solve international affairs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You said two things I wanted to note. First you said that the the world 'could' not have a teacher,' a sovereign leader over it. But then you said "nor should it." Why shouldn't it? Wouldn't it be nice if the world had a person like Prof. Jackson to pull them back from the brink of chaos and put states back on a more reasonable and productive path? Just wondering what your opinion would be.
PS- Love the Ender series reference.
While a world leader may be able to put states upon a productive path and prevent unnecessary conflict, the likeliness of every state giving up their sovereignty so that one person (how could they agree upon who it would be??) could do so is miniscule. I suppose that the world could have a leader, however I feel that due to corrupt human nature, the person in this postition would take advantage of their power and not consider that which is best for all people. No one has no ties/loyalties. Whatever nation the leader felt connected to (was born in/lived in) would most certainly benefit more than others, even if the leader swore to be unbiased. Also, how could they know what is best for the world? Sacrifices would be made and nations would be unhappy with the way the hegemony was run and most certainly rebel.
Post a Comment