World Wars I and II was the ideal of struggle that was held in highest regard

World wars i and ii was the ideal of struggle that

This preview shows page 94 - 95 out of 133 pages.

World Wars I and II was the ideal of struggle that was held in highest regard. As Francis Fukuyama (1992) describes, however, many in the West today enjoy an indeterminate satisfaction that they have somehow reached "the end of history." This may not be completely illusory: in politics the "West" has achieved stability, orderly transitions of power, widespread freedoms, protection of basic rights, and participation in government; in economics it has achieved high levels of wealth and reasonable patterns of wealth distribution; class conflict has been more or less resolved in favor of a large middle class; in other social matters, education and literacy are widespread, health care is adequate, and popular culture through various media offers amusement and enjoyment of leisure time to a majority of the population. The West, in other words, may see nothing major that it still needs to struggle intensely in order to secure. It has reached a situation of relative self-satisfaction. From the West's perspective, what is, in a broad sense, is good, and should be preserved. Outside the context of struggle, however, conflict is an overwhelmingly negative phenomenon, notable only for its harmful side effects of violence, suffering, and general discomfiture. If the macro picture is indeed positive, as described above with regard to the West, then conflicts are, in a sense, troublesome brush fires that need to be put out rather than incipient struggles that need to be fanned. Obviously, from the outside - for example, Arab - perspective, wherein major and, perhaps, revolutionary change seems, to many, necessary at the level of political, economic, and social affairs, the side - effects of conflict are not nearly as significant as the value of the struggle itself if it succeeds. The aff’s political framing excludes issues not allowed under policymaking framework, such as Orientalism. This creates a vicious cycle of structural violence. Thus we need critical self-reflection in order to escape the cycle. Bilgin 04 (Pinar Bilgin is Assistant Professor of International Relations at Bilkent University, Ankara. Regional Security in the Middle East, 01 November 2004, First Edition, RoutledgeCurzon, p. 49-51) The positions of Gray and Garnett regarding the theory/practice relationship are similar to that of their conception of theory. Both authors are Pasts, presents and futures of security in favour of and open about the role theories play in informing practice. However, their conception of practice is restricted in that they understand practice as policy-making and implementation at governmental level. In this sense, those who do not engage in issues directly relevant for policymaking are not considered to be engaging with practice. This position hints at a narrow view of politics where it is considered only to do with governance at the state level. This, in turn, flows from the objectivist position adopted by the authors where the study of strategy in particular and academic enterprise in general is viewed as a politics-free zone. This is a powerful move, for
Image of page 94
Image of page 95

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 133 pages?

  • Winter '16
  • Jeff Hannan
  • .........

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture