So, I can't think of a good opener for this blog. Perhaps it's blogger's block or perhaps I've been studying Biology and Calculus so much that I've forgotten how to write...So I'm going to be extremely unoriginal and just copy and paste PTJ's blog prompt and work off of that ok? I'm sorry. I'll try to be more original next week. I promise.
Among other things, today we discussed the issue of whether and to what extent the authority of a professor in the classroom is limited. Extending this analysis to the international system: are there things that states should not do? Are there social norms and expectations that set limits on state action, or are all such limits reducible to questions of power and self-interest?
To address the first question, I have NO IDEA what each states' role is. I know that the roles tend to vary depending on how involved the state is in global affairs and the type of government rules the state. I think that there are very few boundaries when it comes to global state dynamics. I think that if the U.S. declared war on the world or attempted to attack another major nation, like England or France, without just cause, that would be out of line. Also if a secular nation state put bans on religious customs without having the citizens vote, that would be out of line. But right now that's the best example I can think of right now...
In regards to social norms and expectation, it depends on the state because each state has difference social norms and expectations. For example, it is the social norm in India for the man to earn the money and the women to take care of the home and in the U.S., there is a list of social norms that are followed in America. Because of the differences in social conduct in the various nation-states of the world, the state action may or may not have limitations based on "society."
Looking at the United States, I think that society plays a major role in how we perceive global dynamics, though it may not necessarily affect the global interactions directly. As an arguably elitist nation (In my opinion, most Americans think they are better than other countries), I feel that we expect things from other "civilized" countries. For instance, when I saw a speech by Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, I was surprised to see the Venezuelan president in a wind-cheater and what appeared to be jeans. As an American, I think that a president should wear a suit or an outfit that maintains the air and respect that a suit embodies when addressing the public...
*TANGENT ALERT*
After all, a suit is a universal sign for professionalism, success, and business. When someone walks down the street in a suit, people know that that person is a professional. He's doing something important. There's this episode in How I Met Your Mother that explains the impact of a suit. Just watch and see how this hippie transforms into a man of power.
Now see how everyone reacts to the suited up Barney.
Magical. I know.
*BACK TO THE FUNCTION*
But I doubt that these video clips affect people in non-corporate societies in the same way. People have expectations based on what society has trained them. For example, there is an understood rule in our World Politics class that cell phones should be silenced during class, however, no where in the course syllabus or guidelines is there written the explicit rule that phones are to be silenced or turned off during class. (It is understood because in middle and high school, there was an explicit rule that banned cell phones in class. The rule became implicit when we moved to the college setting because the rule was drilled in us for 7 years, so most assumed that the rule applied to any classroom or lecture setting.) When 3 cell phones went off during the span of yesterday's class, the bearers of these phones were not punished or reprimanded. In fact, they phones became another example that of course helped prove PTJ's point, because PTJ seems to make everything prove his point.
But who's to say that the implicit cell phone rule is applied in European schools? Only the people who live and experience the other cultures will know or be able to understand their perspectives and expectations.
So to get back to the questions that I clearly didn't answer, I think that there are social normals and expectations that limit or affect state power; however, what specifically those limitations are depend on the culture and social expectations of the people in the state in question.
Just one more example, I promise. It is the most relevant one yet. Today when the French Parliament's banning of the burqa and niqab, an issue that to many Americans seems unjust and almost racist. However, the diplomat presented the French government's point of view and the logic behind the law: One of France's main goals is to integrate its people so that it doesn't matter who is an immigrant and who is of French dissent. France wants to unify the people and not make major distinctions like "minority." France believes that banning the burqa will improve integration because people will not create communities based on their backgrounds but will be simply French.Because the custom of wearing the burqa was established in the last century, the custom is more of a cultural identity as opposed to religious one. I think that France feels that people who wear the burqa are almost pushing themselves away from the French mentality and are unwilling to integrate with other French customs. The diplomat also noted that the burqa is a sign of women's suppression and that banning the burqa will help promote women's rights amongst the Muslim population in France. To me, their reasoning seems logical, though after hearing the French perspective, I still oppose the ban. But, this is where differences in social expectations come into play: had this been a bill trying to be passed in the United States, it would not have made it past Congress because socially, it would have been unacceptable.
No comments:
Post a Comment