Introduction to IS Compilation
Document
Contents
Introduction to IS lecture 1 9-9..............................................................................................................2
Studying “the other” studying ourselves...........................................................................................2
Introduction to international studies.............................................................................................2
Introduction to IS lecture 2 16-9............................................................................................................5
Basic concepts...................................................................................................................................5
Studying “the other”, studying yourself.........................................................................................5
Introduction to IS lecture 3 23-9............................................................................................................8
The romance of Tahiti........................................................................................................................8
Introduction to IS Lecture 4 30-9.........................................................................................................16
Introduction to IS lecture 5 7-10..........................................................................................................19
Introduction to IS lecture 6 14-10........................................................................................................22
Introduction to IS lecture 7 28-10........................................................................................................29
Introduction to IS lecture 8 4-11..........................................................................................................33
Introduction to IS lecture 9 11-11........................................................................................................37
Introduction to IS lecture 10 18-11......................................................................................................41
Introduction to IS lecture 11 25-11......................................................................................................47
1
,Introduction to IS lecture 1 9-9
Studying “the other” studying ourselves
Introduction to international studies
We look at history for example through very national lenses we need different disciplines
Disciplines:
- Hard science: physics
- Social science: sociology, anthropology (psychology, history)
- Humanities: (history)
Hard sciences are very straight forward and pretty objective; social science and especially humanities
often have no clear, objective answer. They’re about complicated, nuanced, frustrating answers and
out-of-the-box thinking. Every discipline has its own function, value, strengths and weaknesses.
IS fits humanities, area studies as well as social science
Criticism on disciplines: people look at their field of expertise within a vacuum and don’t take any
variables into consideration
When cultures collide – Richard Lewis (book)
The Lewis model plots countries in relation to three categories:
- Linear-actives: those who plan, schedule, organise, pursue action chains, do one thing at a
time (negative connotation: uptight/control-freaks/tunnel-visionaries)
- Multi-actives: those lively, loquacious peoples who do many things at once, planning their
priorities not according to time schedule but according to the relative thrill or importance
that each appointment brings with it (negative connotation: unreliable/messy)
- Reactives: those who prioritise courtesy and respect, listening quietly and calmly to their
interlocutors and reacting carefully to the other side’s proposals (negative connotation:
passive/lack initiative)
Flaw in the Lewis model: he is treating nation-states and cultures as equal. There are very many
differences in how people view the world within each nation-state.
Factors that might influence how you see the world: education, ethnicity/immigration, wealth,
geography, language, history, religion, politics, gender, age.
Some linguists, like Richard Lewis, often believe that language-barriers are the core problem of
conflicts (single disciplinary).
- When dealing with or speaking of “the other,” questions of culture cannot be avoided
- Single disciplines tend to see “cultures” in homogenous, static, and often stereotypical terms
- The Lewis Model = an object lesson (negative example) of the dangers of doing so
By labelling the “Western” world as linear-active, by labelling the “Asian” world as reactive and
Africa and the Middle East as multi-active he’s reproducing/reinforcing imperialism and age-old
stereotypes. Because he reaffirms the ideas readers already have of the world, Lewis was able to
write a “good” book.
It’s quite audacious/arrogant of someone to dare and summarise all cultures on one page, but
people accept it because he has a certain authority (education, white, male, age, experience).
2
,In IS you learn to deconstruct problematic thinking and develop an critical worldview.
“we” feel like Europe and the US have the authority to label and define. “we” feel like “we” are more
developed and superior to “the rest” of the world. By defining “them” “we” both define “them” and
“us”. “we” study “them” (often to exploit them more effectively). The segregation between “them”
and “us” is not neutral.
Old-fashioned area studies: “Us” versus “Them”
Differences (and superiority) assumed—and then measured
Recent scholarship:
- We do not look at “others” innocently or spontaneously, but carry lots of mental “baggage”
with us
- When we identify “them” we also actively define both “them” and “us”
- “Difference” is often an ironic product of interaction: we share more than we realize
Multi-disciplinary = more than one discipline.
Interdisciplinary = intertwining disciplines.
Scholarly boundaries often are still very old-fashioned.
Nowadays:
- Racism = taboo
- Assumption of Western superiority = taboo (sort of?)
- Modern Ideals
o Equality
o Freedom
o Tolerance
o Understanding/open-mindedness
o Objectivity
- Problem Solved?
Not so fast
Example: Old-fashioned scholarly boundaries
Non-western studies
Western- Western- linguistics Western- Anthropology;
centered history centered centered art western centered
literature history sociology,
economics,
politics
Conventional Academic Disciplines = Western-centered (Exceptions: Linguistics; Anthropology)
Conventional “non-Western” studies: structurally separate, “different”
Global positioning sensitivity:
What defines “us” and “them”?
Developing an awareness of the roles of power, history, and position in the making of “us” and
“them”
Critically exploring the histories of scholarship of “the other” and the disciplines through which this
has been approached
3
, 4
Document
Contents
Introduction to IS lecture 1 9-9..............................................................................................................2
Studying “the other” studying ourselves...........................................................................................2
Introduction to international studies.............................................................................................2
Introduction to IS lecture 2 16-9............................................................................................................5
Basic concepts...................................................................................................................................5
Studying “the other”, studying yourself.........................................................................................5
Introduction to IS lecture 3 23-9............................................................................................................8
The romance of Tahiti........................................................................................................................8
Introduction to IS Lecture 4 30-9.........................................................................................................16
Introduction to IS lecture 5 7-10..........................................................................................................19
Introduction to IS lecture 6 14-10........................................................................................................22
Introduction to IS lecture 7 28-10........................................................................................................29
Introduction to IS lecture 8 4-11..........................................................................................................33
Introduction to IS lecture 9 11-11........................................................................................................37
Introduction to IS lecture 10 18-11......................................................................................................41
Introduction to IS lecture 11 25-11......................................................................................................47
1
,Introduction to IS lecture 1 9-9
Studying “the other” studying ourselves
Introduction to international studies
We look at history for example through very national lenses we need different disciplines
Disciplines:
- Hard science: physics
- Social science: sociology, anthropology (psychology, history)
- Humanities: (history)
Hard sciences are very straight forward and pretty objective; social science and especially humanities
often have no clear, objective answer. They’re about complicated, nuanced, frustrating answers and
out-of-the-box thinking. Every discipline has its own function, value, strengths and weaknesses.
IS fits humanities, area studies as well as social science
Criticism on disciplines: people look at their field of expertise within a vacuum and don’t take any
variables into consideration
When cultures collide – Richard Lewis (book)
The Lewis model plots countries in relation to three categories:
- Linear-actives: those who plan, schedule, organise, pursue action chains, do one thing at a
time (negative connotation: uptight/control-freaks/tunnel-visionaries)
- Multi-actives: those lively, loquacious peoples who do many things at once, planning their
priorities not according to time schedule but according to the relative thrill or importance
that each appointment brings with it (negative connotation: unreliable/messy)
- Reactives: those who prioritise courtesy and respect, listening quietly and calmly to their
interlocutors and reacting carefully to the other side’s proposals (negative connotation:
passive/lack initiative)
Flaw in the Lewis model: he is treating nation-states and cultures as equal. There are very many
differences in how people view the world within each nation-state.
Factors that might influence how you see the world: education, ethnicity/immigration, wealth,
geography, language, history, religion, politics, gender, age.
Some linguists, like Richard Lewis, often believe that language-barriers are the core problem of
conflicts (single disciplinary).
- When dealing with or speaking of “the other,” questions of culture cannot be avoided
- Single disciplines tend to see “cultures” in homogenous, static, and often stereotypical terms
- The Lewis Model = an object lesson (negative example) of the dangers of doing so
By labelling the “Western” world as linear-active, by labelling the “Asian” world as reactive and
Africa and the Middle East as multi-active he’s reproducing/reinforcing imperialism and age-old
stereotypes. Because he reaffirms the ideas readers already have of the world, Lewis was able to
write a “good” book.
It’s quite audacious/arrogant of someone to dare and summarise all cultures on one page, but
people accept it because he has a certain authority (education, white, male, age, experience).
2
,In IS you learn to deconstruct problematic thinking and develop an critical worldview.
“we” feel like Europe and the US have the authority to label and define. “we” feel like “we” are more
developed and superior to “the rest” of the world. By defining “them” “we” both define “them” and
“us”. “we” study “them” (often to exploit them more effectively). The segregation between “them”
and “us” is not neutral.
Old-fashioned area studies: “Us” versus “Them”
Differences (and superiority) assumed—and then measured
Recent scholarship:
- We do not look at “others” innocently or spontaneously, but carry lots of mental “baggage”
with us
- When we identify “them” we also actively define both “them” and “us”
- “Difference” is often an ironic product of interaction: we share more than we realize
Multi-disciplinary = more than one discipline.
Interdisciplinary = intertwining disciplines.
Scholarly boundaries often are still very old-fashioned.
Nowadays:
- Racism = taboo
- Assumption of Western superiority = taboo (sort of?)
- Modern Ideals
o Equality
o Freedom
o Tolerance
o Understanding/open-mindedness
o Objectivity
- Problem Solved?
Not so fast
Example: Old-fashioned scholarly boundaries
Non-western studies
Western- Western- linguistics Western- Anthropology;
centered history centered centered art western centered
literature history sociology,
economics,
politics
Conventional Academic Disciplines = Western-centered (Exceptions: Linguistics; Anthropology)
Conventional “non-Western” studies: structurally separate, “different”
Global positioning sensitivity:
What defines “us” and “them”?
Developing an awareness of the roles of power, history, and position in the making of “us” and
“them”
Critically exploring the histories of scholarship of “the other” and the disciplines through which this
has been approached
3
, 4
