Today at a session on the relationship between International Studies and Peace Studies, George Lopez made the statement, “Peace Studies is like the tortoise, coming from behind slow and steady; International Studies is more like the hare that’s just been dropped out of a helicopter.” His point was that the “heyday” of IS is past; the funding was strong in the 80s but has dropped off, and Peace Studies is the movement of the future.

Now George Lopez is a very cool guy and intense scholar, and he has been in academia longer than I have; check him out at http://kroc.nd.edu/people/directory/faculty/george-lopez        And I know that part of his purpose in making that statement was to encourage Peace Studies, not discourage International Studies. But still, I am not sure I agree. I have no doubt that Peace Studies is important, relevant, and poised for growth, but it seems to me that issues of sustainability are more at the forefront of donors’ and foundations’ minds. The two are related, of course; but if there’s anything to the notion that “resource wars” will fuel many conflicts in this century, then it makes more sense to devote funding / attention to solving those underlying problems than to resolving the conflicts that will arise if we don’t address the environment.

But this is not an entry about academic turf wars; may we all live long and prosper! Rather, whether I or anyone else agrees with the view that IS is passe depends very much on how one defines, and redefines, International Studies. Our “parent” field, International Relations, may offer an incomplete and discipline-bound view of the world, but it’s certainly not obsolete–not when our president is travelling to Cairo to lecture the Egyptians on why Israel has a right to exist. “Area Studies” gets short shrift these days; but when I look at what is going on in Central Asia (Pakistan/Afghanistan), having people with a solid understanding of particular regions seems more urgent than ever. (Most multinationals are still organized by world region; despite the internet, we remain still physically and culturally captive to geography.)

The big difference between International Studies and Peace Studies, it seems to me, is that IS is a “catch-all,” an over-arching endeavor that risks becoming too diffuse if it tries to be all things to all people. At the undergraduate level, though, it provides a flexible framework for students to discover “what in the world” they want to learn, do, and be. Peace Studies is a much more closely defined field; and since our notions of what “disciplines” are keep changing, I wouldn’t be surprised if an area like “conflict resolution” is considered a discipline in the future. It has some clear foundational insights, methods and methodologies that are very coherent. Hal Culbertson today kept referring to conflict resolution as a “skill”–which it is, in the real world; but as a subject of academic study, I think it’s more than that. (Kroc has an assistant professor of conflict resolution, Larissa Fast, so perhaps they’ve dubbed it a discipline already!)

These are “academic” questions about how we organize knowledge and teaching, and I’m sure the university of the mid-21st century will contain a number of fields we haven’t even imagined yet. But the question for students right now is, “what do YOU want International Studies to be?” What knowledge and skills should this field of study give you; what areas of eneavor (aka jobs) should it prepare you for? Drop me a line and let me know!

One thought on “International Studies: tortoise or hare?

  1. JoAnne Stein
    15:44 - 6-23-2009

    Like you said, the area of IS is very broad. I think it does provide students with a good overview of the different areas. Perhaps there should be more focus on specific jobs/careers and how to get started in them. Maybe there could be a class devoted to the different areas and jobs in IS, something like UNIV 129 Career Planning. But a lot of students need to take initiative and find out about their likes, dislikes, skills, interests, etc. and then work with a professor, Career Center, and on their own to seek out opportunities. I can tell you from my own experience this worked for me.

    Of course I’d love to see Intercultural Communication as a field or even as a major in Communications. I think it’s highly important now to understanding international affairs and is relevant to just about any IS field or focus area. Yes, I’m a bit biased due to my interest and love for the subject but as far as Peace Studies, I think knowing about a culture and studying it can prevent a lot of misunderstandings which can lead to future conflicts. Also when trying to solve conflicts, you must know what kind of negotiation techniques to use to communicate with someone from that country, culture, etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *