KenmoreThompson.com

I regularly dream up new projects which I believe I should do, and then I do not do them. Occasionally I’ll actually do something, or (far more likely) I’ll take an idea and either whittle it down to a shard of its formerly glorious self, or I’ll not codify my laziness and just sort of do half of the idea.

Some examples: When I went to Nepal I had the grand idea of a series of fifteen-ish five minute videos about various aspects of Nepal. It never happened. Similarly, when I came home I was going to vlog twice a week. I was also going to blog according to a schedule. Want to guess which of these things happened? None. I am now, nine months later, just beginning to get back on the vlogging wagon, and my blogging has been very scattered. I also committed to a short story writing group, now that I think about it. I have been derelict in that as well.

I say all that to lead up to this: It feels awesome when I actually do follow through on a project, even if it’s the smallest little thing. An example of this is this picture-a-day thing I’ve been doing since I got my iPhone. My goal was to take one picture every day to somehow represent my life on that day, and I just hit the fifty photo mark without missing one. To the contrary, I sort of broke the rules in the other direction: there are two days with two photos.

But this blog post is less about the project itself (it’s not actually that interesting) and more about how it has affected me. I think of my day in a different way since doing this. It reminds me of the few weeks of principled vlogging I did in 2010, just before going to Nepal.

When I was vlogging I was constantly thinking about my experiences and opinions, and searching for entertaining ways to articulate them to an (admittedly small) audience. I like the sort of person that the regular vlogging made me into, because I think it forced me to be a little more thoughtful.

This iPhonography project has done a similar thing. Often times I’ll think about the plans I have for a given day, and try and pick out something interesting or important about it. It often forces me to think about where my priorities are, or where my focus is.

For example, on December 10th I spent the whole day alone (not an uncommon occurance, mind). In the evening I thought about what would represent my day while I walked to Subway to buy supper. After eating my sandwich, I was so close to making my picture for that day a photo of my receipt, because I was one point away from a free footlong sub. Then it occurred to me that I hadn’t taken a single picture featuring my current roommate Zach. Contrast that with my mother (you have my permission to pause here and consider a ‘your mom’ joke). In my effort to diversify my subjects I actually made a point not to take a picture of mom on her birthday because I already had two pictures of her. Instead I took a terrible picture of the restaurant my brother and I brought her to.

Similarly, and as alluded to a minute ago, it has caused me to consider my life. So often I have gotten to the end of a day and realized that I haven’t done anything worth documenting. Whether that’s because I had been busy writing papers, or just because I’ve become some sort of recluse. I have often come to the conclusion at the end of a given day that I have not done anything of importance. It has forced me to come to terms with what I realize has been six months of reclusiveness (at least compared to the previous months).

A 2012 Project? Perhaps.

In addition to the project itself, and the self-examination it has precipitated, the project also provides me with a useful resource. I now, after 48 days of low-impact self-documentation, have fifty pictures I can use to brighten up otherwise uninteresting blog posts.

Two resolution for 2012 have thus come a few weeks early. First: make use of the lessons I’ve learned through this iPhonography project. Get out more, and do more things worth doing. And second: commit and adhere to more projects like this. Even if they’re small things, the rewards seem to be more valuable than the time I would otherwise spend on Tumblr.

What follows is a short paper I had to write for my Intro to Government and Politics course.  It turned out decently, although it was quite rushed.

—–

It has been asked which view of international politics seems best suited to address the sources of conflict among states today. In order to have a solid foundation from which to answer the question as asked, this paper will take for granted that the political can be understood by the Westphalian System, whereby states each have equal legal standing, and international order (or dis-order) rises from an anarchic method of mutual coordination (Dickerson, Flanagan, O’Neill 89). This paper will briefly examine some examples of modern conflicts between states. These examples will be: the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the USA; Brazil’s accusations of illegal cotton industry subsidies against the USA; military and ideological tension between Israel and Iran; border disputes between India and Pakistan. This paper will examine these conflicts through the lens of the three dominant theories of international relations (Realism, Liberalism, and Structuralism) and evaluate how the structuralist view is most useful.

First let us understand what we mean by conflict, for that will have an effect on our findings. Clearly, anything which results in the use of violence by one or both of the parties involve can be accepted as a conflict, but does a conflict require military expression, or even the possibility of military expression to be worthy of our notice? I would argue that even where the threat of open hostilities are extremely slim, a difference of opinions, ideals, or interests may be significant enough to one or both of the parties to complicate relations between them. So let ‘conflict’ mean any difference of opinion between states which has a diplomatic effect.

A good example of a peaceful conflict is the dispute between Canada and the USA regarding softwood lumber. This conflict has existed in one form or another for over 20 years. Washington claims that the low cost of harvesting lumber from Canadian crown lands is effectively government subsidization, which is forbidden by trade law and justified the application of a tariff to equalize the artificially low price of Canadian lumber. Ottawa disagrees that this is government subsidization, and thus finds the American import tariffs to be a violation. The case has been arbitrated several times by agencies such as the World Trade Organization and NAFTA (“Softwood Lumber Dispute”). While the dispute appears to have been put to rest for the next several years by a 2006 deal between the two parties signed in Geneva, the history if the issue suggests that it could remain a source of conflict for some time.

In another case arbitrated by the WTO the United States was found on the opposite end of a similar case when Brazil accused the American government of granting prohibited subsidies to its cotton industry (“United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton”). After several rounds of arbitration and appeals, during which the American cotton industry remained subsidized, the WTO granted Brazil the right to tax American imports to Brazil. Brazil proceeded to threaten new tariffs which would damage several American industries’ performance in Brazil. As a result, the United States negotiated a somewhat bizarre settlement: rather than removing the subsidies to the American cotton industry that the WTO deemed illegal, Washington agreed to subsidize the Brazilian cotton industry as well (Joffe-Walt).

Things take a much more dangerous tone elsewhere, though. The rhetoric between Israel and Iran might lead one to believe that war is always but an eyelash away. Some of the rhetoric literally claims so, such as Benny Morris’ 2008 claim that Israel would certainly attack Iran’s nuclear sites within the year, though it is telling that such an attack never came(Avishai, Aslan). Still, there is continual tension and enduring conflict, particularly over the continuance of Iran’s nuclear program.

On the border between India and Pakistan the rhetoric has led to war. The ownership of the region of Kashmir has been a disputed point for decades: during the partition of India and Pakistan, the logic dictated that majority Muslim areas would go to Pakistan, which should have included Kashmir. Despite the demography of the area, however, Kashmir was ruled by a Hindu maharajah, which India decided was justification enough to forcibly occupy the state for its own. Since that time Pakistan and India have fought three wars, two of which were directly related to the ownership of Kashmir (Shaheen).

Now, let us examine these conflicts using the various theories of international relations.

Realism is a mindset which emphasizes the sovereignty of states, and sees the relationship between states to be adversarial and uncertain. The Realist expects the state to be highly competitive, attempting to mitigate a rival’s advantage and to ensure its own survival by achieving supremacy in a variety of spheres, not the least of these being international influence and military capacity (Dickerson, Flanagan, O’Neill 91).

In our first two examples this Realist perspective seems empty. Neither the dispute between Canada and the USA regarding softwood lumber, nor the dispute between Brazil and the USA regarding cotton subsidies has any security implications. Neither do either of these conflicts seem to be attempts to gain a diplomatic advantage, or mitigate a rival’s. Realism seems a much more comfortable lens with regards to Iran’s ambitions to nuclear capacity, and Israel’s concerns over the same, however. In the middle-east, Israel is surrounded by enemies on every side (Rosenberg), and Iran is simply one of the more capable of these. In this context, then, Iran’s nuclear program could be seen as an attempt to mitigate Israel’s current military advantage. Similarly, in understanding Pakistan and India’s relationship Realism is helpful. Pakistan’s desire to posses Kashmir are an obvious threat to India’s sovereignty, just as India’s initial seizure of Kashmir can be interpreted as an attempt to hedge its own geographic advantage further.

Next let us appreciate a Liberal understanding of these situations. A Liberal will assert that the end of international relations is to maintain order and peace amongst the global community (Dickerson, Flanagan, O’Neill 92-3).

With this understanding the trade disputes between Brazil and the USA, and Brazil and the USA make more sense. Despite being unlikely sources of military conflict, the cordial relationship between the actors is threatened (or at least complicated) by the breakdown of their trade relationships. In both of these cases the actors sought external arbitration from the WTO and, while the USA did not respect the WTO’s ruling in the case of subsidized cotton, the mechanisms in place did lead to the end of the dispute between the USA and Brazil. Between Israel and Iran there seems to be no effective arbitration, however. While surely neither party wants war, Iran’s nuclear program continues, a fact which continues to concern Israel. The rhetoric from both sides does not seem to suggest a desire for the maintenance of order and peace. And between India and Pakistan no agreement has come to fruition, despite UN resolutions from 1948-49 prescribing a “free and impartial plebiscite,” and an agreement in 1972 to negotiate peacefully on the region (Shaheen). This too bodes ill for order and peace.

The third mode of understanding these conflicts, structuralism, proves to be the most thorough. Structuralists hold to the primacy of economic relations in the international community, not the military-security relations which both Realism and Liberalism presume to be most important. The structure of, and relative positions of states within, the world economy provide for a platform of understanding these conflicts (Dickerson, Flanagan, O’Neill 93).

Canada and the USA are both relatively prosperous countries meaning that, despite the fact that the USA is larger, they can come to the negotiating table as equals. Brazil on the other hand, is a much less prosperous nation, relegating it to a disadvantaged position on the world market. This explains the initial American uncooperativeness with Brazil, and also explains why the USA was willing to negotiate a settlement with Brazil only after Brazil threatened tariffs: an economic weapon. The tensions between Israel and Iran, while not entirely economic, are certainly affected by the actors’ relative economies. For instance,when writing on why they believe Israel and Iran will not come to blows, Avishai and Aslan point out that “In times of economic frustration, [Iran relies] on anti-Israel … gambits to distract attention from domestic hardship.” Iran’s nuclear program, they suggest, must be understood in that context (Avishai, Aslan). And finally, while Kashmir may convey a military advantage upon India, India also has an economic interest. Isolated and threatened though it may be, India continues to invest significant amounts of money in the region for development every year (Sanghvi).

So it is that while both realism and liberalism both offer important and valuable insights into the relationships between states, a focus upon a structuralism is the most sure to provide a foundation for understanding and addressing the sources of conflict among modern states.

—–

Paper-writing in progress.

—–

Works Cited

Akhtar, Shaheen. “Kashmir: Pakistan’s ‘unfinished agenda.’” Al Jazeera English. 21 Aug 2011. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.

Avishai, Bernard, Reza Aslan. “An Israeli Strike on Iran, a Plan That Just Doesn’t Fly.” The Washington Post. 10 Aug. 2008. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.

Dickerson, Mark O., Thomas Flanagan, Brenda O’Neill. An Introduction to Government andPolitics: A Conceptual Approach. Toronto: Nelson Education Ltd, 2010. Print.

Joffe-Walt, Chana. “Why U.S. Taxpayers are Paying Brazillian Cotton Growers.” National Public Radio. 9 Nov. 2010. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.

Rosenberg, MJ. “Israel Abandoned.” Al Jazeera English. 14 Sept. 2011. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.

Sanghvi, Vir. “Think the Unthinkable.” Hindustan Times. 16 Aug. 2008. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.

“Softwood Lumber Dispute.” Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. CBC News Online. 23 Aug. 2006. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.

“United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton.” World Trade Organization. Web. 7 Nov. 2011. 

I can assure you I will probably say nothing new in this post.  I long ago lost the conceit that I can have an original idea.  But I have begun to conceptualize language along a spectrum, which is a perspective I would like to share.

Some Adjectives in the Wild

The first and most obvious pole is language as a communicative enterprise.  I don’t have to paint a fairly detailed picture for you, I’m sure.  If you are reading this post, you probably have some idea of what I’m talking about.  In my head right now are concepts that I wish to express.  I form these concepts into language (in this case a written one) with rules and conventions, and then I externalize them for the whosoever to see.  You take the words off your computer screen and understand them to be indicative of my thoughts.

Like I said, language as a communicative enterprise is easy enough to accept.  To facilitate the communication, we have a complex series of rules and conventions that, if not followed lead to a breakdown in intellectual connection, and to the diminished value of language itself.  If I just decided to eschew punctuation entirely, for example, what I have to say would be very difficult to comprehend.  In spoken language, we have surely all encountered barriers where someone has an imperfect grasp of English.  The Russian speaker who drops definite articles or inserts them inappropriately might still be able to transmit their thoughts and ideas, but some element of understanding is undoubtedly lost (or at least hindered).

We can go too far in facilitating clear communication, though, when we impose too-rigid rules, and too-exclusive word-banks for speakers to choose from.  The notion that a sentence cannot end with a preposition is ridiculous, for instance.  The reason that such a ‘rule’ exists is interesting, but I won’t explain it here because I’m not exactly qualified (as if I’m qualified for anything).  But I encourage you to corner my friend David, or your own resident linguist, or even to just google it, if you are interested.

The limits on coining words are just as ridiculous to me, though, especially since the ‘established language’ is often insufficient to serve it’s communicative purpose.  To remedy this we rely on language’s other pole which is it’s creative, or expressive side.

Some friends of mine and I have great fun coining new words with one-another.  It’s so much fun that we have coined a few words to describe the activity.  Extending from ‘wordsmith’ we sometimes discuss the ‘wordforge’ (often written ‘wordförge’ for comic effect), which is the process by which new words are created (conceptualized as an oven in which concepts are fired into words).  A quick google reveals that ‘wordforge’ is a word in use elsewhere, but I’ll shrug that off as an instance of parallell evolution.

There is a degree to which this no longer facilitates communication.  For example, while it might be straightforward to imagine a ‘banalnana,’ based on it’s constituent words, a word like ‘flipplewatson’ lacks similar traction–especially if it does not illustrate a concept which is currently wordless.

An example of a nonsense-sound achieving more or less widespread communicative power might be ‘grok,’ coined by Robert A. Heinlein.  Grok is a word that I particularly love, because it conveys a concept that is otherwise un-conveyable succinctly: a radical empathetic understanding which surpasses understanding and elevates the understander into oneness with the understood (my definition. The wikipedia article linked above has a better one).  The word has taken on a particular usefulness to me since taking a course on Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, despite the fact that ‘Grok’ is around 150 years younger.  Hegel, through the Phenomenology, wants to help his reader to grok absolute spirit (absolute spirit can be contrived as ‘God’ but I’ll discuss ‘God’ in another minute).

That’s not to say that if a word doesn’t have widespread communicative power, however, that it is useless.  As we move away from the pole of communication and toward the pole of expression, it becomes more about what is expressed than what is understood.  In the last few weeks I have begun to think of language as a radically personal enterprise: all of us speak our own language independent of everyone else’s.  There is a large amount of overlap between speakers, especially when they ‘share’ an established language like English, but that is not a guarantee that two individuals will actually understand each other.

Rather than a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ issue, mutual intelligibility is a matter of degrees, and it is never 100%.  Whether or not one speaker had encountered a word like ‘grok’ before, or whether they accept or understand a useful word that I have coined, or even if we both attribute slightly differing definitions to the same word, all of these are factors which set our language apart from our neighbours.

In that last case, consider ‘God.’  For some the word means a metaphysical being, outside of the spaciotemporal world, who has a will.  For others (such as many deists) it is a collection of natural forces which order the universe.  If you believe the first definition is the correct definition of ‘God’ then you can believe in the second definition, yet give it a different name, and call yourself an Atheist.  (Not saying, of course, that this is the case for all Atheists, but that it is a possibility which demonstrates ambiguity).

At the extreme ‘expressive’ end of the spectrum of language, it might be worth mentioning Hopelandic.  Hopelandic is the invented, meaningless language of the Icelandic singer Jonsi.  It has no grammar.  It has no dictionary.  It exists to express the emotion of the singer, without being burdened with any meaning.

Since I have started thinking of words and language along this spectrum, I have found it an interesting exercise to try and imagine where any particular word falls along it, and I encourage you to consider it as well.  Obviously a vast majority of words will fall closer toward the communicative end, although some words of my ‘personal’ language, understood by only a handfull of close friends, may be better visualized as nearer the center, or toward ‘expressive.’  And as for the vitriolic slurs I yell when being killed in Halo, the only communicative reality they posses is to concisely convey my current emotional state.  While ‘F***ing c***s****er’ may seem to hint at a definition, it is not intended to actually convey an idea.