|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
What do you mean by realpolitik, precisely? Do you mean the kinds of views espoused by Kissinger and others? Or do you mean simply politics divorced from morality? |
In the Bismarckian sense. Which is where Kissinger got it. 'Divorced from morality' could be one way of looking at it, but I think it's more like 'grounded in the reality of the world' or 'divorced from immoveable ideology, doctrine or religion'.
We're talking here about a theoretical model to explain geo-strategic politics between states as opposed to a universal constant or a physical law:
"Realism makes several key assumptions. Primarily, it assumes that mankind is not inherently benevolent and kind but self centered and competitive, in contrast to other theories of international relations such as liberalism. It also fundamentally assumes that the international system is anarchic, in the sense that there is no authority above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity (that is, no true authoritative world government exists). It also assumes that sovereign states, rather than international institutions, non-governmental organizations, or multinational corporations, are the primary actors in international affairs. According to realism, each state is a rational actor that always acts towards its own self-interest, and the primary goal of each state is to ensure its own security. Realism holds that in pursuit of that security, states will attempt to amass resources, and that relations between states are determined by their relative level of power. That level of power is in turn determined by the state's capabilities, both military and economic."
It's not a perfect model but even after 100 years it still consistently provides rational explanations for many states' seemingly irrational behaviour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
couple it with Tuchman's idea that states often do not act in their own self-interest (despite trying to) and you have a pretty good model of the way international politics between nation-states works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Western-style dress? Come on.. That's silly. Freedom of choice I think is a better way to put it. |
OK, call it whatever you want.
When successive Turkish govts adopted Western-style hats and suits, it was clearly understood that they were pushing their society and culture in a specific direction. Some see this as modernization.
When the Chinese were binding women's feet, beginning at age four, this was not a practice compatible with modernity. I believe the Chinese no longer practice this.
Same with women being forced to cover their heads all over the Middle East today, or homosexuals being executed, or guys having their hands cut off in the criminal justice system, etc.
The fact that we seek to assert universally-applicable standards of human rights, or follow a universally-applicable ideology or religion (e.g., Marxism-Leninism, Christianity, Islam, what have you), or fantasize about a unified world in the future (Star Trek, immensely popular -- in the U.S. anyway) strongly suggests that "modernity" has a specific meaning to many, even if it is not as clearly defined as we would like it to be.
I know it's vague, but I think it is fair to say that many in the Middle East, then, resist modernization and blame the U.S. as the source for any and all pressures their socieities may be facing to modernize. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
When successive Turkish govts adopted Western-style hats and suits, it was clearly understood that they were pushing their society and culture in a specific direction. Some see this as modernization.
Same with women being forced to cover their heads all over the Middle East today, or homosexuals being executed, or guys having their hands cut off in the criminal justice system, etc.
|
Forced all over the M.East? Sinc when did Iran and Saudi Arabia=all over?
And given the crime rates in the islamic world vs. the western, I'd say their justice system might be better than ours. (kidding there) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
When successive Turkish govts adopted Western-style hats and suits, it was clearly understood that they were pushing their society and culture in a specific direction. Some see this as modernization.
Same with women being forced to cover their heads all over the Middle East today, or homosexuals being executed, or guys having their hands cut off in the criminal justice system, etc.
|
Forced all over the M.East? Sinc when did Iran and Saudi Arabia=all over?
And given the crime rates in the islamic world vs. the western, I'd say their justice system might be better than ours. (kidding there) |
Come on, dude. "In various parts of the Middle East," then. The region is known for this practice, is it not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| By your logic then, South Asian women are "forced" into wearing saris. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| By your logic then, South Asian women are "forced" into wearing saris. |
I wasn't talking about saris. I know little about India.
If an Indian woman walked in public without a being in a sari would she suffer the kinds of consequences an Afghan woman might suffer for walking around in one? It may not be a tight analogy, then.
I see Middle Eastern women walking around my campus with their heads covered everyday. I also see southern Californian women walking around with, let's say, considerably less. (I have yet to see an Indian woman in a sari, even though there are literally dozens of Indian women here where I am.) In any case, we have tolerance for that either way.
What might happen to a southern Californian woman bouncing around in Afghanistan, for example, in a miniskirt that hid nearly nothing and maximum cleavage showing as well?
Do typical Mid East women have these kinds of choices? No? Because their societies resist modernization.
Bernard Lewis makes the explicit link between clothing and modernization quite poignantly in The Middle East, where he uses "traditional" and "Western" in place of my "modern." But really it is the same thing, unless we are splitting hairs. For facing "tradition" rather than "the present" or "the future" is exactly my definition of resisting modernity, in whatever context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
