Reflections of Week II

This week in class it was interesting to discuss sovereignty and its implications in an interactive manner. Simplifying areas of the world, using chairs and desk space, as well as fourth grade students forces one to think about the similarities between establishments, and use these simulations as a tool to clarify ideas and uncover some sort of truth. Yet I think I have come to realize there really are not any absolute “truths” in the way countries coexist, in as much as there are applicable theories. After all, we can theorize about our environment and its future based on history we’ve observed, as trends often repeat themselves, yet it is not possible to categorize or predict the future with definity. For example, one can define general patterns of behavior that are common to human nature, yet does it mean that a person will always act according to that pattern and exhibit a particular “trait” of human nature? Using trends and patterns may support a school of thought and a theory, however it may not constitute a blue print by which to simplify an environment and from which to derive absolute conclusions. The beauty of a theory is that it is open to the influence of other perspectives (thesis and anti-thesis) and may provide a probability, leading the way for evolution that expresses the complexity of how countries interact. Viewing the world from the perspective of a realist, liberal, and constructivist should be very telling in the coming weeks.