Levels of Analysis
Levels of Analysis is an important methodological component that deserves close attention. Discuss your reflections and post questions if any that you have on the class discussion on this topic.
Politics of the Developing Nations POSC 311
This blog is a pedagogical tool for Dr. Khan's Politics of Developing Nations [POSC 311-010] class.
About Me
-
- Name:Muqtedar Khan
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
- 21st Century Demographics: Highs and Lows
- Asian Values
- Eastern Philosophy
- Defining Globalization
- The United States of Globalization
- Global Development Network
- enotes on Developing Nations
- These are links to Globalization and the Developing World
- Defining the Third World/Developing World
- Brief History of India
Links
13 Comments:
I understand that there are various levels of analysis but I don't understand why comparative politics deals only on the State level? (I think that's what was said in class but I'm not sure....I probably just didn't understand though).
Kristen, I’m pretty sure that what lines the concept of comparative politics is the relativity that allows us to view one situation in many different lights. Aspects of Politics can be as confusing on the state level as any other. The confusion comes from the relativity in which different people view different issues. For example, on the state level, we could say that America has a well established democracy (in comparison to Cuba, for example.) On an international level, we could say that our economy is more globalized than it was one hundred years ago. As of 2005 our economy is “very globalized” when in relation to our economy in 1905, however 50 years from now someone may make a completely opposing statement; the economy of 2005 is not globalized at all. The fact that the description of a political personality, state or global era at a specific point in time is relative creates for political scientists the area of comparative politics.
This brings me to another point that I thought was interesting. In call Dr. Khan spoke about time being the only non-relative aspect of the idea behind relativity. On the global level, to which we only have our history as a developing world to compare, time is the one thread holding the comparison together. The fact that we can’t change time or history makes it an inescapable, almost overpowering part of the world in which we live.
I thought that professor Khan raised a very excellent point in class today stating how women from the United States think it is terrible the way some Middle Eastern women are oppressed. But all meanwhile we tend to ignore the issues of rape, prostitution, and sexual abuse of the women in our very own country. I find it unfair the way we as Americans are so quick to judge foreigners and point fingers of what other countries are doing wrong – often to divert the focus away from our own troubles.
Considering the different levels of analysis is extremely important in order to get a complete understanding of the issue at hand. Levels of Analysis is also important because it reveals the various biases and faults of the one who is analyzing. It was said in class that people who look soley at the individual level are often psychologists. At the same token, those who study the state are political scientists. Being an expert on any particular level is valuable, yet without the others, only a partial view and understanding can possibly be obtained. This point can be made by applying the levels of analysis to the movements of the sun as seen from the ground on Earth. Studying just one level, one could believe that sun moves up and then down across the sky. You can deduce possible theories about the situation from this analysis, such as that the sun must revolve around the Earth since it rises in the East and sets in the West, without ever moving west to east. However, it is not until one looks at the all levels of analysis can it be understood that Earth revolves around the sun, which is part of a larger revolving galaxy.
The thought that there are different levels of analysis within different scientific studies, is quite remarkable, yet so simple. My views on my surroundings are only what they are because I have seen other things and I have a basis of understanding that all things are different, and important, in their own right. So long, we may look at a situation in one way that we lose sight of the most important parts of that one thing.
I will walk away from a situation with a completley different thought than the next person because they have only their past experiences as a marker for the present. The knowledge that other people do not share all of our experiences is, in the political arena, the only thing that we have to keep our course straight. Only time will tell what we are missing in the present, and since only hindsight is 20/20, theories and comparisons are the best chance that we have at making sense of what will come.
Understanding the different levels of analysis are essential when dealing with comparative politics because it gives you three unique approaches to an issue. I find the international level to be the most interesting because many things involved in the international system are uncertain. For example, international law and treaties are most often followed by countries, but because there is no world government to enforce such laws, there can be no real certainty that any actor will always obey by the rules. This instability factor keeps states communicating and makes the other two levels of analysis even more important.
To my understanding, the different levels of analysis enable us to analyze and understand comparative politics in 3 main Levels of comparative politics. I thought Professor Khan's comment on how there is a greater emphasis and attention given to individuals rather than the international or state level (especially international level). His example of US (BUSH TO BE EXACT) bombing Iraq was not really condemned or dealt with in accordance to human rights “laws”, while on the other hand if a person is slapped or worse killed will face the harshest punishment. I think it all depends on where and under what conditions you live. Is the life of millions of Iraqi not as important and equal to a life of an American? If I get out and kill someone "accidentally", I am pretty sure that I will still be punished for it. Then even if by "accident" (as the US Government puts it) places in Iraq are bombed in which innocent civilians live, Should that be punished as well. I find that very hypocritical on the side of US Government.
P.S. Sorry if you guys encounter any problems understanding what I said. English isn't my first Language!
I think having a chart such as the one posted on this blog is a great reference for levels of analysis. We all know that we must analyze different aspects of different governments, but it really helps to have a chart that points out specific things to focus on.
Also, I think it helps in broadening our views in helping us realize that we analze things based on what we think we "know" (aka, what we have been told and things/opinions we have decided upon over the years) .
Why our government does something one way may make perfect sense to us as Americans, but to someone else from a different country seem absurd because of their personal beliefs, what they are used to and what they have been taught is 'right.'
P.S., that last comment was not meant for Bush! Or anything to do with Iraq, because I think he and the war are crazy and awful, and am against them both.
I think having a chart such as the one posted on this blog is a great reference for levels of analysis. We all know that we must analyze different aspects of different governments, but it really helps to have a chart that points out specific things to focus on.
Also, I think it helps in broadening our views in helping us realize that we analze things based on what we think we "know" (aka, what we have been told and things/opinions we have decided upon over the years) .
Why our government does something one way may make perfect sense to us as Americans, but to someone else from a different country seem absurd because of their personal beliefs, what they are used to and what they have been taught is 'right.'
Having different levels of analysis is important when analyzing different subjects. Also, the the fact that comparative politics operates within the state level is interesting with regards to the point Dr. Khan made about all measurement being relative. We all see and understand the world around us according to our own pre-existing constructs. Someone from Nigeria may evaluate and compare a situation in a completely different manner from myself. Their perception and understanding is relative to their surroundings as is mine. Therefore it is important for comparativists to analyze subjects from the same level, the state level.
I agree with Nicole regarding Professor Khan's remarks about the cultural differences amongst women around the world, and how many view other ways of life as wrong, unfair and cruel. I believe however that this is not as much an issue of trying to hide our own issues as it is a problem of ignorance towards different customs and ways of life that are practiced. Judging other cultures can never be positive unless it is looked at from all the different perspectives. Because of this, it is important therefore to have these different levels of analysis.
No matter what you are criticizing or agreeing with, or supporting or discouraging, there must be more than one view used as the standard for which to compare. This is why it is important to have the different levels of analysis, for it is crucial to not always look at issues from the individual perspective (as often issues are), but also from the larger scales. Claiming that the way women live, for example, in the Middle East is wrong tends to be the argument of those looking at situations only from the individual level. What is right and what is wrong? Who is to say? Looking at women's issues in the Middle East on the state level paints a very different picture than that on the individual level. When you involve government and national interest, these people may believe this is custom and what is best. It's very different comparing and passing judgement on a "world" so different from ours.
I am not saying that I believe the way women are treated and live there life in many of the Middle Eastern countries is right, for I will admit it is often times even hard for me to understand why the situations are as they are, but I believe it is important to really study the whole picture before only looking at an issue on the individual level.
Every person's experiences and lives are different in every way, and although all the answers will never be known, puting yourself in the shoes of another person helps you to be more open minded about why things are the way they are. I think Lauren made an important point in saying that "theories and comparisons are the best chance that we have at making sense of what will come", for isn't it true that history is story of man, that lessons are taught and learned on the basis of comparison? I just believe it is important to really try to understand issues in the most unbiased way before making a claim. And in order to do so, all three levels of analysis need to be addressed.
I agree with Maria a lot on her points. You can never fully understand a culture or history that you are not involved with. In Iran before the revolution in 1979, the Shah made it illegal for women to wear veils. As a result, many women refused to leave their houses because they felt so uncomfortable. To me that sounds insane. However, since I was not an Iranian women living in Iran during this time, I cannot really understand why women felt this way. Comparative politics is the same way. You can look at a countries international agendas or its how well its economy is going, however to really understand the country, you have to look at the people. For example if you look at India you see a booming economy that is becoming an international power, however many people are still very poor and living in poverty. The United States is the strongest country is the world right now, however the people are divided because of political beliefs. Comparative politics is very interesting because even though a country seems well off, it is the different levels of analysis that determine the strengths and weaknesses within a nation.
Megan O'Toole 11/15/05
Post a Comment
<< Home