political science major's rant.

A friendly caution- this post may be boring for a non-political science major.

What's a good political scientist? Someone who can package crap as grand theory will be my appropriate answer. Immanual Kant is well-famed for his incoherency, Marx's theory is still disputed and subjected to lots of interpretations, Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations seems overly simplistic and yet applicable all at the same time and Francis Fukayama's End of History thesis is an overly optimistic liberal view that has lost much credence after the rise of religious fundamentalism in today's world..especially the post 9-11 era.

There are so many more examples that I can list out..I guess the biggest problem a political science major faces must be the fact that one can never call a spade a spade..unlike history..we like to deconstruct things..like to protray a simple world as a complicated one..or rather describe a complicated world to the fullest..there's always perspectives..and many many sides to the story..depends on which ideological slant that you are leaning closer to. Realism, liberalism, marxism, postmodernism, technological determinism, constructivism, functionalism, primordialism, individualism...let us not even go into adding the neo- in front of some of these theories.

I am a proud realist, a neo-realist in some aspects, a hawk, a person who believe that power is the be all and end all and states will always be the main actor and the most powerful actor in the international environment, everything is determined first by realpolitik, by geopolitics, by calculated self-interest..humanitarian concern, altruism, just war, ideological reasons for fighting are not irrelevant to me but always seems less convincing to me on a personal basis...Yup, I admit, this is a serious ideological bias.

Today, I had a seminar essentially upon medium theory, of all fields, my most hated field postmodernism..Mcluhan tried to sell this theory by stating the crappy fact that the medium is the message, no..the medium is the massage..oh wait..he meant both are applicable..you know what's the most irritating thing about postmodernists? You can never pin their argument down..its all ambiguity here, incoherence everywhere..complicating simple issues..I will accept the scientific prism analogy as with how information interacts with the media..but...the medium is the message and source doesn't matter, hot and cool mediums? Come on, let's be realistic.

Mcluhan confused me so much that the subsequent postmodernist discussion about medium as the message or the massage rendered me into a silent student for the first time..not out of my own will, not because of lack of effort but lost in the world of postmodernist discussion..

It is actually a bit funny to see people attacking and defending a postmodernist theory..especially when more often than not..the position of a postmodernist is not clear. My mind steeped in the proud tradition of realist thought just could not muster an argument that I am convinced of to defend/attack this stupid medium theory.

* I need to join in the mess the next time I encounter another postmodernist theory crap..for the 20percent participation marks cannot be neglected. >.<