Seeking knowledge for it's own sake can in itself be the ultimate purpose, but can the same be said when every person and all of the nations are stakeholders under the said question.
International relations as a field is described as the study of state and non-state actors in the international milieu and from what I've seen it does just that; analyzing and commenting on the different aspects in the international realm. I admit that this is my first IR course and I don't possess the sufficient exposure to comment on the field itself, but what I feel is a lack of deeper purpose in the field. It seems as if the theorists are out there grabbing and describing aspects of the international arena without a central framework or purpose in mind. It is as if they are discovering bits and pieces of information without putting it in a grander framework or making sufficient use of it. I by no means mean to imply to discredit the efforts and the value of the work done, but suggest lacking of a central task that is grander in nature than just studying the international arena.
The purpose or central task in my opinion that should be taken up or at least commented upon in detail is that of bringing all the actors in the field under a common banner or task that all of them should strive towards to. Stating what the task is in a sense would be stating the purpose of humanity and if at present there is no sole agreed purpose, finding that purpose in itself can be taken up as the interim task. Alongside this task, efforts should be put in to strive towards the betterment of humanity as a whole and in creating an international banner under which the whole of humanity stands and it is ensured that every human whilst alive lives his life to the best that can be provided. In other words except for waiting to go to heaven we should strive to make our own heaven here and now. This in my opinion is also possible when nationalistic pride is transcended and replaced by a humanistic pride.
International relations as a field is described as the study of state and non-state actors in the international milieu and from what I've seen it does just that; analyzing and commenting on the different aspects in the international realm. I admit that this is my first IR course and I don't possess the sufficient exposure to comment on the field itself, but what I feel is a lack of deeper purpose in the field. It seems as if the theorists are out there grabbing and describing aspects of the international arena without a central framework or purpose in mind. It is as if they are discovering bits and pieces of information without putting it in a grander framework or making sufficient use of it. I by no means mean to imply to discredit the efforts and the value of the work done, but suggest lacking of a central task that is grander in nature than just studying the international arena.
The purpose or central task in my opinion that should be taken up or at least commented upon in detail is that of bringing all the actors in the field under a common banner or task that all of them should strive towards to. Stating what the task is in a sense would be stating the purpose of humanity and if at present there is no sole agreed purpose, finding that purpose in itself can be taken up as the interim task. Alongside this task, efforts should be put in to strive towards the betterment of humanity as a whole and in creating an international banner under which the whole of humanity stands and it is ensured that every human whilst alive lives his life to the best that can be provided. In other words except for waiting to go to heaven we should strive to make our own heaven here and now. This in my opinion is also possible when nationalistic pride is transcended and replaced by a humanistic pride.
Do you think the field lacks a deeper purpose, or do you think that the theorists who are in the field are just trying to grapple with huge problems without a specific "right" way of doing so?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of substantive feedback, while I enjoyed reading your critique of what you argue are the weaknesses of IR, you failed to connect your points to the reading. Mearsheimer's piece is an attempt to explain the international system and how we can make it better. If we understand that states seek to maximize power, then we as individuals can then perhaps lobby our own states to choose the best course of action that will ensure our own state's survival and long-term viability. Hence, I think you missed the point of actually writing on the subject at hand and instead just gave me a stream of conscious summary of your views of the deficiencies of IR.