Explicating two poems - compare and contrast Essay

Explicating two poems - compare and contrast - Essay Example The two poems are on the subject of childhood with reference to the innocence that is conceded by children in their very hearts as well as wholesomeness of their passions or zeal. The poems moreover depict childhood of the poets and how they experience evocative feelings concerning the preeminent time of their lives which had enormous possibilities but which have become precedent already. Mutually, the poems characterize delight and recollections of childhood. The disparity between these two poems is that Mitchell’s poem is incredibly optimistic, has its core focus on celebrating children. Riley’s poem, on the other hand, upholds its concern on the poet’s own childhood experience. Mitchell’s poem; â€Å"The Love will Start with a Word about Children† encompass straightforward words that illustrate that children have continual potentials as pure and innocent beings. Mitchell articulates her outlook as regards small kids in a reasonably incredible approach. She has used simple defined word, which is continent, to symbolically stand for children. She considers that just like a continent can have many nations and look forward to a lot of development in its life, the children also have endless possibilities in life. We on no account know what a child will be able to explore. She has especially and confidently expressed the responsibility of parents in helping their kids to explore the world. They get to be ac quainted with themselves and their roots through their parents. She believes that after some time, these children will grow up and will advance or promote matching acquaintance and aptitude to their children. Riley in â€Å"The Child-World† has conferred the world of children according to his personal experience. The poet has given the impression of his own home, his street and Indiana of his own childhood. In addition he argues

Alexander Wendt The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Essay

Alexander Wendt The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations - Essay Example Initially, Wendt believed on Marxism, as a way of understanding international politics and capital, but later turned to constructivist theory. According to Wendt (1999, 110), in the Agent-Structure theory of international relations, states in international relations act: out of the need to make own free choices and independently; and out of consistent patterned structures which fundamentally shape state choices and opportunities. This discussion therefore seeks to discuss Wendt’s theory and is therefore divided into four sections as shown below: Wendt’s central argument How Wendt’s argument differs from neo-realism and world-systems theory Whether Wendt’s ‘solution’ to the agent-structure problem is the only one available or not Whether Wendt’s ‘solution’ compelling or not Alexander E. Wendt (b. 1958, Mainz, W. Germany) is a political scientist and a core constructivist scholar in the field of international relations. Toget her with scholars such as Peter Katzenstein, Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore, Wendt established constructivism as a school of thought. Wendt has taught Yale University (1989-1997), Dartmouth College (1997-1999), University of Chicago (1999-2004) and Ohio State University, where he currently serves as the Ralph D. Mershon Professor of International Security. Wendt wrote the Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations in 1987. ... state interests and identities and that because of this, many scholars fail to consider how first and second factors affect state interests and identity. Wendt also points out the failure of neoliberalism as being steeped in the fact that it seeks to explain interstate cooperation by only focusing on the process, while leaving out systematic variables. Constructivism fails to address how state identities are formed in practice (Clarke, 2003, 122). Nevertheless, Wendt ties the constructivist approach to the concept of self-help. This is because, international institutions (as self-help agents) may change identities and interests of states. The concept of self-help as is viewed by realists and himself emanates from the interaction of the units in a system in lieu of anarchy. This stands diametrically opposed to structural and deterministic documents which realists advance, and in which anarchy exists as the principal explanatory variable which drives interactions. Wendt also posits tha t states interact with one another, and depending on the results of the interaction, these states can come to be characaterised by self-help. Whatever is accrued depends on the process and not the structure (Fay, 1996, 75 and Fuller, 1998, 98-112). Klotz, Lynch and Dunn (2006, 355 – 381) observe that according to Wendt, unlike norms-based constructivism, neorealism and neoliberalism cannot give an adequate account for changes which take place in international systems. For instance, neorealism and neoliberalism cannot account for the manner in which states behave at their pristine periods, before they acquire any priors. Koran (2007, 324 – 326) and Nishimura (2011, 96 – 112) charge that Wendt identifies sovereignty, evolution of cooperation and intentional efforts to change egoistic