Political Science Revision

I decided to do some revision for my Pol Sci mid-terms coming up next Tuesday. Here's a short summary of what we've learn so far.

In UCLA, I learn about World Politics, in particular International Relations (IR) Theory. Note that I would use the word "Theory" very casually, cause in the strictest term I don't think IR is scientific (obviously some will disagree). The major weakness of IR Theory is its lack of ability to do "experiments" like a normal science. So IR Theory uses evidence from history, and from there formulates hypothesis that hopes to explain events. It's not a predictive theory per se, but more of "reflective"... so-and-so happened because of {insert theoretical explanation}. That in my opinion limits the power of IR... sure you can make predictions... but they're not extremely accurate. All hail the power of Chemistry and the Sciences!

As prof said, IR theory can tell you what a certain State might do... not what it will do.

And most surprisingly, World Politics is not about politics as we know of it (i.e. politicking). Politics is about War. And that's why I like my course... WL likes studying war!!!

Ok, the main gist that I've learn so far is the various perspectives/theories within IR studies. We have 3 major dudes - Realism, Neoliberal Institutionalism {what a mouthful} and Constructivism. Actually, Realism still dominates North-American IR studies, with the two dudes being the best next alternative out there. There's also Feminist studies IR, but that's basically bullshit and useless... and it ain't coming out for the mid-terms.

Realism

Realism is really easy to understand, cause Realism is a reflection of WL-ism. There are some technical premises of realism such as States act with one will (i.e. no internal politics), but the main meat is - Everyone is a selfish fucker and seeks to bastardize everyone else and serve his own self-centered interest. As I said, WL-ism, which is basically everyone is self-centered fucker (a more concise & elegant way of saying it I must comment). In Realism, power is all that matters. Friendship, Love, Carebears and Stuffed Toys are irrelevant. States wants to maximize power... and in doing so disrupt the "balance of power". In return, other States respond to restore the "balance of power". (Sidenote: This sounds like a chapter out of the Dune novels, about the balance of power between the Padisah Emperor, The Great Houses & The Spacing Guild... nevermind if you don't understand). Personally, I find it paradoxical. States want power, yet they desire status quo (i.e. "balance of power"). But whenever they try to become more powerful, it upsets the balance, and so everyone works to achieve back the old balance. Hey you know what? It sounds like Le Chatelier's principle!!! Equilibrium!!! In the process, sometimes things fuck up and thus war emerges. Also in Realism, War is a reality of life... it's an inevitability of the anarchic system. Here, anarchic means that there is no one world superpower to control the system.

Neoliberal Institutionalism

Neoliberal Institutionalism, from WL perspective is an offshoot from Realism. This I suspect is what most people would subscribe too, and WL to a certain extent bases his philosophy partly on this. If Realism were true, it doesn't explain cooperation between States. So here's where Neoliberal (arghh.... fuck it I'll call em the Neoliberals from now on) comes in. Here's where Carebears and Stuff Toys come in. States work together, because in the long-term it serves their benefit. So it's kinda of you scratch my ass, I scratch your ass philosophy. The distinctive difference here is that Realism focuses on the short-term gains, while Neoliberals focuses on the longer-term gains. To Neoliberals, cooperation is inevitable, according to some Game Theory thing... you know the one with you and your friend in prison... if both tell the truth you both get equal punishment, if both lie you get screwed real hard, if one lies and one tell truth one gets screwed and the other go free? Well Neoliberalist assume that this "Game" is played over-and-over again, some States come to realize cooperation is better than conflict... hence the emphasis on long-term interest. In addition, Neoliberalist also emphasis the function of Institutions like UN, IMF, etc... that maintain the cooperation within the system. Hence the term Neoliberal Institutionalism.

Constructivism

The constructivist focus more on the "psychology" behind the countries society. While Realist and Neoliberalist emphasis that the State is a unitary actor (i.e. no internal conflict), Constructivist factor in the effects of society, and how it affects the States action, be it culture, or whatever stuff. Small faction in IR studies... nothing big about them, and more difficult to explain. Basically it's saying that we should studies the fabrics of that country's society, to see how it influences the decisions it makes.

There you have it. IR Theory in short. At least part of it anyway.

Oh ya btw, this account is probably not 100% accurate. I'm a fucking Chemist not a IR Theorist.