Category: Uncategorized

Critical scholars take a less positive analysis than liberal scholars when discussing globalization. In a condensed version, critical scholars attribute globalization to events such as imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, and the overall marginalization of minorities. Globalization was only able to be achieved by forcing their way into countries and taking advantage of people. On the flip side, you have liberal scholars, who have a more positive outlook on globalization, as they believe this was because of success within diplomacy and international organizations, which aided in creating interdependence. When taking a look at both of these perspectives, I believe that the liberal perspective is more persuasive.

I can understand the argument that the critical scholars give, however, I don’t believe through these events they could achieve globalization unless there was only one hegemonic state in the end. Even within colonization, there were many different states, which took part, all of which were battling for power. There was no other goal in mind other than trying to outdo one another. So, unless there was only one main power at the end there would not be global interdependence, solely based on this chain of events. I do believe that critical scholars give important information about events that helped to lead to globalization, however, they missed the connection that states needed to create interdependence. Liberal scholars help to bridge that, as they talk about how the states need to have succeeded within diplomacy, along with the successful use of international organizations. A perfect example of how both of these are needed because of the major division was after World War II, with the creation of the United Nations. After World War II, the UN helped to bring diplomates (delegates) from many states together to create long-term peace between states. After this continued diplomacy and other organizations such as the World Trade Organization were created to create and facilitate interactions between states. All of which created a world where most states can rely on each other for trade, aid, and allyship. Now, this opens a way for more cultural practices and migration of people between states. These factors are all needed to create interdependence which is key for globalization. Overall, critical scholars do a good job of giving important backstory into how globalization came about, however, it missed key aspects needed to bring states together to achieve it.

In college, I like to say “Everything is a group activity” where many events like Oktoberfest, Springfest, or Red Out Football games are all meant to bring everyone together. Which is done in good faith, however, this has one major downside. That many students don’t find a space within our group. Most of the time what goes overlooked is that our group “Dickinson College” is made up of so many subgroups that tend to not mingle. In between you have those who haven’t found their space, those scared to spread out, or those who are made to feel unwelcome. Many tend to not bat an eye on these individuals creating a large problem. They are left in the background, causing many students to feel forgotten, lonely, sad, and even angry. Whereas other students, with larger groups or connections, can take full advantage of activities, having a better experience. On top of this, those within the larger groups usually feel more welcome to join other social clubs like MOB or have enough support to be elected to positions in the student senate. This leaves those within larger groups to have more influence in planning and creating events, tailoring them to what they and those they know like, and creating an atmosphere where they feel most comfortable attending. In a way, this translates to international politics tending to focus on larger states and not the smaller ones, leading to states being pushed to the background of the discussion.

When it comes to the idea of an “other state”, many don’t come to mind, which is exactly my point. There are many international organizations such as the United Nations which are created to help mediate and hold accountability between states. However, there is obvious favor to states that are larger or who have more connections than smaller states. The states: USA, China, France, the UK, and Russia, are all afforded permanent spots on the UN Security Council along with veto power. There are another 10 spots left for other countries, but these seats are not permanent, and come with no veto power. These seats have to be revoted every 2 years, leaving 193 states within the UN assembly to fight for 10 spots. Many states are not able to be a part of this committee, and the majority of those who are on the committee are not afforded special privileges. This has caused many states like Tonga, Samoa, etc.. to have never been given a chance to sit within the security council. This coupled with the permanent members’ ability to veto resolutions or decisions just further pushes back the participation and voices of smaller states. This could become a problem as those who are pushed down tend to revolt, however, it would not matter since most smaller states can not compare to the strength of the larger ones.

Overall, smaller states are given little platform and are usually overshadowed. If asked “What do you think of Tonga?” many would say “I didn’t even know it existed”. On the flip side, almost everyone has an opinion of the US, Russia, or China. As they are the ones who dominate and are heard within international relations. This is interesting to see as this dynamic created is not too far off from the one here at Dickinson.

Aloha! And welcome back to another late-night blog post with Aaliyah. Recently, I had a Zoom session with some students from the UEA! Pretty cool right!? We talked a lot about where we were from, what it was like traveling for school, and about some small things like plants and coffee. There were no doubt many differences and similarities between my home, and the homes of my exchange partners, however, the two that struck me as most important from the Zoom session were our differences in perception of what is considered a long travel time and what we considered to be home.

One of our dominant conversations was about the connection we have with our families even though we all moved a ways away for college. This feeling of missing home seemed to be universal, as whether you were in two states, a country, or even 30 minutes away, we all felt a longing for our family. However, one thing that was particular to the US students was that we felt that even being far away from home we never felt alone. In my case, I have family in Delaware and Virginia, which are a few hours away, but the time does not matter because they can still make it to me. This seems the be the same sentiment for the other two Dickinsonians as well. It brought up a good discussion about what was considered “long” travel time. Both of the UEA students considered 30 minutes to get home long a drive, let alone a few hours, whereas I drove 30 minutes on a good day, every day for high school. It was also interesting to see how even my plane ride was longer than one of the UEA students who traveled from another country. It is fascinating to see the cultural difference in how US students are used to traveling long distances without even batting an eye. It may be attributed to the fact that even though the US is huge (with some of our states bigger than other countries) we are still all connected. It is easy to go from one place to another, with road trips being a tradition with many American families. This probably extended into our everyday lives as time went on, creating people willing to drive 45-plus minutes to get to work every day. In comparison to other countries crossing “state” lines means going into another country making it less accessible. Overall it was funny and exciting to talk about.

Our second dominant conversation was about the universal feeling of love we have for our homes. We all bragged about how amazing our home country or states are, as we all felt a lot of pride for our homes. I enjoyed this part of the conversation as you could hear a shift in everyone’s voice from semi-border to excitement. It also brought up the question of what you consider to be your home! For most of us, we talked about where we grew up or were born, but a couple of students had a mix of answers. One of the Dickinsonans students grew up bi-coastal constantly traveling in between, so he shared some of his favorite memories from each place he went. A UEA student was technically from two countries and talked about his time in the UEA and home. For him, home seemed to be wherever he was at the moment, in comparison to one of the Dickinson students who felt a little nomadic because of how much he traveled as a kid. This was one of the first similarities we had with the UEA students. Some define home as a place where you grew up and others as the places where you have been. This conversation showed us how “home” can be the same for two people even if they grew up in different countries and cultures.

So far, I enjoyed talking with and getting to know more about my classmates and the UEA students. I look forward to more discussions of our backgrounds and cultural differences! Have a good night and I’ll see you in the next blog 🙂

Welcome to Dickinson Blog. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!