Political Science was created and originated in the United States. It can be explained at the focus on the theory and practice of government and politics at the local, state, national, and international levels. It is, also, a social science that deals with systems of government, and the analysis of politics. In political science, there’s four subfields, power, and bigger questions than people realize.

The common theme between all social institutions and politics is power. Power is the ability to affect the behavior of an individual or a group. There are multiple forms of power that can be used in the study of political science. Some forms include; formal power, informal power, and symbolic power. To give a minor description of each, formal power is to have a responsibility to act a certain way, so this would be an umbrella for government at each level. Informal power is to have more power than legally stated, take our First Lady into account, at times she may be found to be doing presidential duties which legally stated is not one of her powers. Symbolic power is a figure, or symbol, and is typically found everywhere, such as; the confederate flag, or the American flag. If a person were to look at a country with a king, the king would be symbolic power, they have power but majority of what they are and represent is the power of parliament; parliament would be formal power because they have the duty to act a certain way. More often times than not, power is attached to knowledge, you can’t have one without the other. They are not separate, they are not neutral, and with power come knowledge.

Within political science, there are four subfields amongst it; American politics, international relations, comparative politics, and political theory. Majority of my explanations of these subfields will be from previous class discussions about each. I’ll start with comparative politics, which is the systematic study of politics and comparison of the political systems. An easier way of understanding it is as comparing political systems. It allows us to compare similarities and difference of political systems, either within a country or between multiple. The core of comparative politics is also a method in which it is done. Here’s how to compare; list factors or values of countries and explain in what ways they are similar and why, then explain in what ways they are different and why. In doing so, you begin to understand the uniqueness of comparative politics, which is making a county less unique. Any country is unique when you look at it on its own, but once you compare it to another country it becomes less unique due to finding similarities. Next we have international relations, which is semi-similar to comparative politics. Within international relations, we don’t focus on how countries compare to one another; rather, we focus on how they relate to one another. What this means is we look at relationships between states or political systems, or how a country interacts with other countries; such as how and why countries trade, cooperate, and even fight. There are, however, two major approaches to international relations. One of which is idealism, this usually tends to the side of cooperation, and the other is realism, this generally focuses on the competitive and conflictual side. Another subfield as stated is political theory, where the multiple meanings of fundamental political concepts are explored, these concepts include; rights, law, justice, politics, the enforcement of laws by authority, and so on. When looking and studying these concepts, there are some questions that are raised to use, such as; what are they, if they’re needed, why they’re needed, and so forth. The last subfield is American politics, this is the largest subfield of political science. The focus here is on political parties, law making, public policy, and more.

To finish off the semester, my class had read Terrorism: Theirs & Ours by Eqbal Ahmad. Ahmad argues a few different things about terrorism. He asserts that people define terrorism in a way that strikes people’s emotions rather than their intelligence, and that people who are seen as terrorists can change and become a freedom fighter, or vice versa. In the book, he does also mention there are more types of terrorism than just religious terrorism, there’s also; state terrorism, criminal terrorism, opposition terrorism, and political terrorism. The biggest critique given is that no one asks why people become terrorist, or the root cause behind it all. As humans with both intelligence and emotions, we focus more on the emotional side of terrorism; we, instead, should focus on the intelligence of it. By this I, along with Ahmad, mean that we must start asking the bigger questions of why someone chooses to go from being a freedom fighter to a terrorism. It’s a simple concept to believe that people are just terrorist, that’s who they are,  that’s what they believe, or that’s what they were raised around. But the concept of terrorism is much bigger than that, and Ahmad recommends that we start to focus on why people become terrorists rather than the fact that they are a terrorist.

Political Science is a field of analysis, bigger questions, and politics. It wouldn’t be political science if there were no politics, but we take the politics and analyze it in ways an average citizen wouldn’t. We ask the questions no one is asking, but we also ask the questions everyone is asking. We focus on power, and the subfields of political science through documents and books of those who have come before us on the same path, people who are asking the questions without answers and finally answering them, or asking the questions no one asks and brings them to the surface of an issue.