Oh the Spools of Communication

I really enjoyed Wendt's article. Through the thick wool that was his rhetoric, a strong aspect of his argument unfolded before my very eyes: COMMUNICATION

INTERACTION REWARDS ACTORS FOR HOLDING CERTAIN IDEAS ABOUT EACH OTHER AND DISCOURAGES THEM FROM HOLDING OTHERS. this is page 405 by the way. By my capital letters, you can tell how excited I am. Communication is the antithesis of Hobbsian state of humanity that man is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" because someone who thought like that would say humanity can not be trusted. And the type of communication that I am discussing is the type that is very Hegelian. Hegel was all about the process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. As in the synthesis, through this osmosis of conversation, if you will, is about a mutual understanding. It is intersubjectivity and cooperation. How exciting is that? And through this intersubjectivity and through these little syntheses that occur, we as a nation state can change our image. But how? And what does this change in identity mean? THIS IS SO FASCINATING! Ok sorry for freaking out, its just that constructivism gives me hope because I like the fact that we are not these stagnant figures. We are constantly fluxing, but the concept of a FLUX is an institution. So back to the 4 ways: 

4 STAGES 2 TRANSFORMING IMAGE

1. intentional transformation.  

2. denaturalization. identify practices that reproduce seemingly inevitable ideas about self and other 

3. change identity of others that help sustain those systems of interaction

4. teach other states ones own state to be trusted, not a threat. 

A good example of this is the USSR. The USSR utilized ALL of these to break down and for Russia to change her image. 1. the state cast the principles of Lenin. 2. recognized/ became SELF AWARE(I love this term because it leaves room and potential for change. Emerson, and please look him up, talks about the sudden importance of Epiphany and how when we have it, we are the most motivated to do something about it because it is innate of us. Innateness is by the way a huge ideal of constructivism)crucial role of  soviet aggresive practices played in conflict and why things had to change. 3. An example of changing identity of others is through communication and discussing what the Soviet was doing about the image. Its like when statements were issued about what EXACTLY is the identity of Russia and how change was going to go underway. And finally 4. Gorbachev pulled troops out of Afghanistan to demonstrate a change in Russian foreign policy. You see why this excites me? Because through discussion, WE CAN MOVE FOREWORD. And I love that. But you are probably wondering why I love it or why change is so exciting to me. Because through the exchange of ideas and foils and differences, we can REFLECT on our history and the spread of ideas. We can adjust our state for the betterment of our societies. Stability does not always mean stagnant behavior. A leader can still be considered strong, yet listen to his people and change policies appropriately after the osmosis os discussion. But keep in mind there has to be checks and balances. If you flip too fast, your people will question your ruling. But you must keep in mind that you, yourself, as a leader, are listening because it is not always about stability. In my opinion, a good government is one that adheres to the will of her people. 

But at the same time, I want to address another issue. That does not mean that if a crazy leader wants to come to power he can because the people will it so. Due to the osmosis of conversation and discussion, a happy medium can be found. At the same time, I will NOT allow history to meld issues. I believe on a one to one level or a short term level, there should be catalysts in the works. Kierkagard would certainly agree that if we see something wrong, we should stand up and address it. I AGREE COMPLETELY. I think that through these little catalysts, discussions can form, and with that syntheses can be reached, and with that, the face of governance will change. Don't you see? Its a cycle people! Change is our institution. We can make things happen. If we act and discuss. Oh, the spools of communication. Indeed. See what happens when you pull a thread, you are left with hands tied in string. Liberating? I hope so. 

The awesome philosophers I was talking about:

kierkegaard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Søren_Kierkegaard

hegel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel

emerson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson