# data[].attributes.headline
John J. Mearsheimer: “The False Promise of International Institutions” (1994-1995)

# data[].attributes.subject
John J. Mearsheimer: “The False Promise of International Institutions” (1994-1995)

# data[].attributes.body
In “The False Promise of International Institutions”, John J. Mearsheimer challenges the belief that international institutions can ensure global peace and stability. He argues from a realist perspective that institutions such as the United Nations or NATO are not independent actors but reflections of the power distribution among major states. According to Mearsheimer, realists see the international system as anarchic, meaning there is no central authority to enforce rules or prevent conflict. States therefore act mainly out of self-interest and a constant desire for survival. Mearsheimer critiques three institutionalist theories—liberal institutionalism, collective security, and critical theory - claiming that all of them overestimate the ability of institutions to influence state behaviour. He believes that cooperation among states happens only when it serves their national interests and aligns with the balance of power. Institutions, in his view, merely formalize this cooperation; they cannot prevent wars or major rivalries when states’ interests conflict. Mearsheimer concludes that institutions play a marginal role in maintaining peace, as real power politics and military capabilities remain the true determinants of international stability. Thus, he presents a skeptical view toward the post–Cold War optimism that global peace could be achieved through shared norms and organizations.

# data[].attributes.headline
John J. Mearsheimer: “The False Promise of International Institutions” (1994-1995)

# data[].attributes.subject
John J. Mearsheimer: “The False Promise of International Institutions” (1994-1995)

# data[].attributes.body
Mearsheimer’s article offers a powerful critique of the optimism that often surrounds international institutions. His realist perspective emphasizes the limits of cooperation, reminding readers that even in a world full of organizations and treaties, national interests and power competition still dominate global politics. I find his argument convincing in some ways, especially when looking at modern examples such as the Russia–Ukraine war or tensions in East Asia. These conflicts show that institutions like the United Nations have limited power to enforce peace when strong states act unilaterally.

However, Mearsheimer’s position also feels too pessimistic. While it is true that institutions cannot stop every war, they still provide frameworks for diplomacy, trade, and humanitarian aid. For instance, organizations such as the World Trade Organization and the European Union have successfully managed cooperation among states that once fought each other. These examples show that institutions can shape expectations and build habits of dialogue, even if they cannot eliminate the basic struggle for power.

Reading this article made me realize how complex international relations truly are. Mearsheimer encourages us to see the world not as an idealist dream of unity, but as a competitive system where power still matters most. Yet his argument also challenges us to think about how institutions could evolve—perhaps by becoming more inclusive or by adapting to new global challenges like climate change. In this way, his critique pushes both scholars and citizens to face the hard truths of global politics while still searching for better forms of cooperation.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Politics Among Nations”, Hans J. Morgenthau

# data[].attributes.subject
“Politics Among Nations”, Hans J. Morgenthau

# data[].attributes.body
In Politics Among Nations, Hans J. Morgenthau develops one of the most influential theories of political realism. He argues that international politics is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature, particularly by the desire for power. According to Morgenthau, states act mainly to preserve their national interests and to ensure survival in an anarchic international system where no higher authority exists. He introduces the idea of “political power” as the central concept of international relations and claims that moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in the same way as to individuals. For him, the pursuit of power is not necessarily evil but a natural and inevitable part of global politics. Morgenthau identifies six principles of political realism, which emphasize the importance of rational analysis, the distinction between morality and politics, and the constant need to balance power among nations. His work warns against idealistic thinking and the illusion that peace can be achieved through moral persuasion or legal agreements alone. Instead, stability is possible only through prudence, balance of power, and recognition of national interests. Politics Among Nations therefore provides a philosophical foundation for realism, shaping the way scholars and policymakers understand international relations to this day.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Politics Among Nations”, Hans J. Morgenthau

# data[].attributes.subject
“Politics Among Nations”, Hans J. Morgenthau

# data[].attributes.body
Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations gives a deep and realistic picture of how world politics operates. His idea that international relations are driven by power rather than morality feels both logical and uncomfortable. It reminds readers that, despite moral ideals or international laws, countries often act mainly to protect their interests. When I think about current global events, such as the competition between the United States and China or conflicts in the Middle East, Morgenthau’s arguments seem very relevant. They show how nations prioritize security and influence over ethical values when making decisions.

However, his strict focus on power can also feel limiting. Morgenthau tends to overlook the role of international cooperation, human rights, and global institutions that emerged after World War II. Although he acknowledges moral factors, he sees them as secondary to power politics. In today’s interconnected world, where global problems like climate change and migration require collaboration, his view seems somewhat outdated. Yet his realism is still useful because it helps explain why idealistic goals often fail without strong political foundations.

What I personally find most valuable in Morgenthau’s work is his call for prudence—the idea that leaders must act with wisdom and caution. He does not celebrate power but warns about its dangers. This makes his realism more thoughtful than purely cynical. His book encourages a balance between moral responsibility and political necessity. Reflecting on his ideas helped me understand that international relations are not only about ideals or institutions, but also about the constant struggle to manage power wisely in a world without a central authority.

# data[].attributes.headline
C. Wright Mills: “The Promise of the Sociological Imagination” (1959)

# data[].attributes.subject
C. Wright Mills: “The Promise of the Sociological Imagination” (1959)

# data[].attributes.body
In The Promise of the Sociological Imagination, C. Wright Mills introduces a powerful concept that connects individual experiences with larger social and historical forces. He argues that many people feel “trapped” by their private lives because they fail to see how personal troubles are linked to public issues. According to Mills, neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood separately; both must be studied together. The sociological imagination is the ability to understand one’s biography within its historical and social context — to see how larger structures such as economy, politics, and culture shape personal experiences. Mills criticizes the narrow focus of modern social science, which often studies isolated facts without connecting them to broader social patterns. He believes that true sociology should help individuals understand the relationship between their private lives and public problems, such as unemployment, poverty, or war. By developing this “quality of mind,” people can better interpret their own situations and act more effectively as citizens. Mills concludes that this sociological imagination is not just an academic tool but a way of thinking that can empower individuals to grasp the meaning of their place in society and the changing world around them.

# data[].attributes.headline
C. Wright Mills: “The Promise of the Sociological Imagination” (1959)

# data[].attributes.subject
C. Wright Mills: “The Promise of the Sociological Imagination” (1959)

# data[].attributes.body
Mills’s idea of the sociological imagination deeply resonated with me because it connects personal experience to the bigger picture of society. It makes me realize that many problems we face - like job insecurity, inequality, or social pressure - are not only individual failures but also consequences of larger social structures. This perspective feels liberating because it shifts the focus from blaming individuals to understanding systems. For example, when people lose their jobs, it is not always due to laziness or poor decisions; it might result from economic changes, automation, or political policies. Mills’s concept helps reveal these hidden links.

What I find especially important is his idea that knowledge should be used to make society better, not just to analyze it. Mills challenges both scholars and ordinary people to think critically about their world. In today’s fast-changing society, where media often simplifies problems, his message feels more relevant than ever. It reminds us to ask deeper questions about the causes behind everyday events - why inequality grows, why people feel isolated, or why politics can seem disconnected from real life.

Personally, the sociological imagination encourages me to see my own experiences as part of a bigger social story. It makes me reflect on how my education, gender, or family background influence my opportunities. At the same time, it shows that individuals can also shape society by becoming more aware and active. Mills’s work is both intellectual and empowering: it teaches that understanding society is the first step toward changing it.

# data[].attributes.headline
“The Contemplative Pause: Insights for Teaching Politics in Turbulent Times,” Karen T. Litfin

# data[].attributes.subject
“The Contemplative Pause: Insights for Teaching Politics in Turbulent Times,” Karen T. Litfin

# data[].attributes.body
In “The Contemplative Pause: Insights for Teaching Politics in Turbulent Times,” Karen T. Litfin explores how contemplative practices, such as mindfulness and self-reflection, can improve learning and emotional balance in political science education. She argues that higher education often focuses only on intellectual knowledge and ignores the “inner curriculum” - the emotional and personal experiences students bring into the classroom. Litfin believes that contemplative teaching helps students develop attention, emotional awareness, and empathy, which are especially important when discussing difficult or divisive political topics. By encouraging brief pauses for reflection, breathing, or silence, teachers can help students connect thought with feeling and respond to political issues with more understanding rather than reaction. Drawing on research and her own experience, Litfin shows that these practices reduce stress, increase focus, and promote respectful dialogue. She calls this approach “person/planet politics,” where education connects inner awareness with global responsibility. In times of political polarization and environmental crisis, Litfin argues that cultivating mindfulness and compassion can create more thoughtful citizens and deeper forms of civic engagement. Her article combines psychology, education, and political science to propose a more holistic way of learning - one that values both intellectual and emotional growth.

# data[].attributes.headline
Karen T. Litfin: “The Contemplative Pause: Insights for Teaching Politics in Turbulent Times” (2018)

# data[].attributes.subject
Karen T. Litfin: “The Contemplative Pause: Insights for Teaching Politics in Turbulent Times” (2018)

# data[].attributes.body
Litfin’s article gave me a completely new perspective on what education can mean. I had never thought of political science as something that could include mindfulness or emotional awareness, but her argument makes a lot of sense. Politics today often feels angry and divided, and classrooms can easily become tense when discussing controversial topics. Litfin’s idea of a “contemplative pause” shows how silence and reflection can actually make political learning more human. It helps students not only understand issues intellectually but also process them emotionally and ethically.

What I find especially meaningful is her idea of the “inner curriculum.” Usually, education focuses only on memorizing theories or writing essays, but Litfin reminds us that real learning involves attention, empathy, and self-awareness. This connects deeply with the current world situation, where social media and constant information make it hard to think calmly. Her approach could help students slow down and listen - to themselves and to others. I also appreciate how she links personal mindfulness to global responsibility, suggesting that understanding our own emotions can lead to more compassionate action for society and the planet.

Personally, this article made me reflect on how I learn and interact in discussions. Sometimes I react emotionally to political topics without thinking clearly, but Litfin’s message encourages me to pause and breathe before responding. I believe her approach could transform not only political education but also public life - making it more respectful, thoughtful, and grounded in understanding. In a world full of noise and conflict, her call for a “contemplative pause” feels both revolutionary and necessary.

# data[].attributes.headline
John J. Mearsheimer: “The False Promise of International Institutions” (1994-1995)

# data[].attributes.subject
John J. Mearsheimer: “The False Promise of International Institutions” (1994-1995)

# data[].attributes.body
Quote 1 (p. 7 ):

“Realists maintain that institutions are basically a reflection of the distribution of power in the world.”
Keywords: realist maintain, reflection of the distribution of power
Explanation:
Here, Mearsheimer summarizes the realist position: institutions mirror the power relations between strong states instead of shaping them. In other words, powerful countries create and control institutions to serve their own interests. This quote highlights the core difference between realism and liberal institutionalism - for realists, cooperation exists only when it benefits the dominant powers. It expresses the realist skepticism toward the idea that rules or agreements can override the pursuit of national interest.

Quote 2 (p. 43):

“Critical theory provides few insights on why realism has been the dominant discourse.”
Keywords: critical theory, realism, dominance,
Explanation:
In this statement, Mearsheimer criticizes critical theorists who try to imagine a more cooperative world but fail to explain why realism continues to prevail. He argues that realism remains dominant because it accurately reflects how states behave. The quote demonstrates his defence of realism as a practical and historically grounded theory, while suggesting that idealistic approaches often ignore real political constraints.

Quote 3 (p. 13 ):

“In a realist view, Institutions are arenas for acting out power relationships.”

Key-words: arenas, acting out power relationships

Explanation:

This quote perfectly summarizes Mearsheimer’s realist understanding of international institutions. He argues that organizations such as NATO or the United Nations do not exist above states or control them; instead, they serve as stages where powerful nations compete, negotiate, and reinforce their dominance. Institutions, therefore, are not neutral spaces for cooperation - they reflect the ongoing struggle for power among states. Realists believe that the rules and structures of these institutions are shaped by the strongest countries to maintain or expand their influence. Mearsheimer uses this idea to show that despite the appearance of order and equality, international institutions are ultimately tools of power politics, not independent actors promoting peace.

Quote 4:

“Great powers fear each other. They also compete for power.”

(p. 9)

Understanding:

He argues that uncertainty about other states’ intentions makes major powers suspicious. This fear leads to competition, arms buildups, and balancing.

Keywords: great powers, fear, competition.

Quote 5:

“Cooperation is sometimes possible but always difficult.”

(p. 12)

Understanding:

Mearsheimer says cooperation is limited because states worry that partners may gain more than they do. This “relative gains” problem reduces trust and creates obstacles to long-term cooperation.

Keywords: cooperation, relative gains, trust.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hans J. Morgenthau: “Politics Among Nations” (1948)

# data[].attributes.subject
Hans J. Morgenthau: “Politics Among Nations” (1948)

# data[].attributes.body
Quote 1 (p. 4):

"International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power."

Keywords: , conflict, realism, human nature

Explanation:

Morgenthau begins by asserting that competition for power is universal - it defines both domestic and international politics. This idea reflects his belief that the desire for power is rooted in human nature. He presents power not as an evil force, but as the central fact of political life. The quote captures the realist worldview that conflict and rivalry are natural and unavoidable parts of international relations.

Quote 2 (p. 10)

“A political policy seeks either to keep power, to increase power, or to demonstrate power.”
Keywords: power dynamics, ambition, motivation, survival
Explanation:
Morgenthau outlines three main motives driving all states. Whether a country wants to preserve its position, grow stronger, or show its strength to others, the goal is always linked to power. This framework helps explain diverse political behaviors - from alliances to wars. The quote shows how realism simplifies international relations into a clear and pragmatic model of survival and influence.

Quote 3:

“Interest defined in terms of power.”

(Chapter 3, p. 30 — Six Principles of Political Realism)

Understanding:

This is the core of classical realism. Morgenthau says states always act to defend their interests, and these interests are ultimately about gaining or preserving power. Morality and emotions cannot override this logic.

Keywords: national interest, power, realist logic.

Quote 4:

“The statesman must think in terms of the national interest.”

(Chapter 3, p. 50)

Understanding:

A good leader must focus on what benefits the country as a whole, not personal values or emotions. Foreign policy should be rational, strategic, and guided by long-term national goals.

Keywords: statesmanship, national interest, rationality.

# data[].attributes.headline
C. Wright Mills: “The Sociological Imagination” (1959)

# data[].attributes.subject
C. Wright Mills: “The Sociological Imagination” (1959)

# data[].attributes.body
Quote 1 (p. 4)

“The sociological imagination enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between the two within society.”

Keywords: imagination, perspective, interconnection
Explanation:
Here, Mills defines the sociological imagination as a “quality of mind” that allows people to see how their personal stories fit into larger historical contexts. This perspective transforms private problems into public issues. The quote expresses his hope that sociology can awaken critical thinking and empathy by showing how individual and collective destinies are intertwined.

Quote 2 (p. 5)

“Nowadays men and women often feel that their private lives are a series of traps.”
Keywords: alienation, modernity, helplessness, society
Explanation:
Mills describes the psychological feeling of entrapment in modern society. People feel powerless because they don’t understand the social structures shaping their lives. This quote illustrates his critique of industrial capitalism and bureaucracy, which limit personal freedom and create confusion about responsibility and control.

Quote 3:

“Private troubles are rooted in public issues.”

(p. 8)

Understanding:

Mills shows that many challenges people face unemployment, stress, insecurity are not only personal but connected to broader political and economic systems. This helps students connect micro-level experiences to macro-level forces.

Keywords: private troubles, public issues, societal patterns.

Quote 4:

“Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both.”

(p. 10)

Understanding:

Here Mills emphasizes the mutual connection between individuals and society. People shape social life, but society also shapes people’s opportunities and choices.

Keywords: individual-society relationship, context, structure.

# data[].attributes.headline
Karen T. Litfin:  The Contemplative Pause: Insights for Teaching Politics in Turbulent Times (2018)

# data[].attributes.subject
Karen T. Litfin:  The Contemplative Pause: Insights for Teaching Politics in Turbulent Times (2018)

# data[].attributes.body
Quote 1 (p. 5):

“Our students literally inhabit a different planet from the one on which we came of age.”
Keywords: generational change, environment, transformation
Explanation:
Here, Litfin highlights how global problems such as climate change and digitalization have fundamentally altered students’ realities. Teachers must therefore adapt their methods to a new world. The quote expresses her call for educators to connect lessons to students’ lived experiences and environmental challenges.

Quote 2 (p. 6):

“The contemplative pause is not a magic potion; rather, it is an adventure.”
Keywords: reflection, growth, mindfulness, experience
Explanation:
Litfin emphasizes that mindfulness is not a quick solution but a continuous journey of discovery. It requires curiosity, patience, and openness. This quote reflects her view that education should be experiential — learning through awareness, not only through theory or debate.

Quote 3:

“The ecological crisis is not only a political problem but also a crisis of consciousness.”

(p. 5)

Understanding:

Here she suggests that environmental problems cannot be solved only through laws or technologies. They require a deeper change in how people perceive themselves and nature. Without a shift in awareness, political solutions will always remain incomplete.

Keywords: ecological crisis, consciousness, awareness.

Quote 4:

“Sustainable action begins with the cultivation of inner stability.”

(p. 9)

Understanding:

Political and environmental sustainability require individuals who can act calmly and intentionally. Without inner stability, people tend to follow short-term motivations that may harm long-term societal goals.

Keywords: sustainability, inner stability, long-term thinking.

# data[].attributes.headline
Kenneth Waltz — Theory of International Politics (Chapter 6)

# data[].attributes.subject
Kenneth Waltz — Theory of International Politics (Chapter 6)

# data[].attributes.body
Quote 1:

“The structure of international politics is defined by anarchy and by the distribution of capabilities across units.”

(Chapter 6, p. 79–80)

Understanding:

Waltz argues that IR is shaped not by leaders or domestic politics but by the overall system in which states exist. The absence of a central authority (anarchy) combined with how power is distributed creates pressures that all states must respond to. This means even peaceful states may behave competitively because the system pushes them in that direction.

Keywords: anarchy, structure, capabilities, systemic pressures, neorealism.

Quote 2:

“In anarchy, security is the highest end. Only if survival is assured can states safely seek such other goals.”

(Chapter 6, p. 91)

Understanding:

Here Waltz explains that states cannot focus on things like economic growth or cooperation unless they first feel secure. The uncertainty produced by anarchy forces states to prioritize survival. This helps explain why even wealthy or democratic states sometimes act aggressively or defensively.

Keywords: security, survival, hierarchy of needs, uncertainty.

Quote 3:

“The units of international politics are functionally similar; they all perform the same tasks.”

(Chapter 6, p. 93)

Understanding:

Unlike organizations inside a country, states are not specialized. Every state must protect itself, interact diplomatically, manage its military, and survive. This functional similarity means the main difference between states is how powerful they are, not what their internal systems look like.

Keywords: functional similarity, units, survival tasks.

Quote 4:

“The distribution of capabilities, not the characteristics of units, explains outcomes.”

(Chapter 6, p. 97)

Understanding:

Waltz emphasizes that outcomes in world politics are shaped mainly by how military and economic power is distributed. A strong state will behave differently than a weak state regardless of who leads it or what ideology it has. The systemic level matters more than domestic details.

Keywords: relative power, systemic outcomes, distribution of capabilities.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alexander Wendt — Anarchy Is What States Make of It (1992)

# data[].attributes.subject
Alexander Wendt — Anarchy Is What States Make of It (1992)

# data[].attributes.body
Quote 1:

“Anarchy is what states make of it.”

Understanding:

Wendt challenges realism by arguing that anarchy does not automatically create fear or competition. Instead, states build their relationships through interaction. If they act hostile, anarchy becomes dangerous; if they act cooperative, anarchy becomes peaceful. The system is shaped by meanings and expectations, not only material forces.

Keywords: constructivism, social interaction, anarchy, meanings.

Quote 2

“Self-help is an institution, not a constitutive feature of anarchy.”

(p. 397)

Understanding:

Wendt says states adopt self-help behavior because they expect threats—not because anarchy forces them to. Self-help is a practice created through repetitive actions. This means states can escape power politics if they redefine their relationships.

Keywords: self-help, institutions, constructed behavior.

Quote 3:

“Identities and interests are constructed by collective meanings.”

Understanding:

States are not born with fixed interests. Their goals change depending on how they understand themselves and others. Shared norms, history, communication, and culture play major roles in shaping state behavior.

Keywords: identity, interests, norms, collective meanings.

# data[].attributes.body
Quote 1:

“The civil constitution of every state shall be republican.”

Understanding:

Kant argues that republics are more peaceful because citizens bear the cost of war and are less likely to support conflict. This is a foundational idea behind democratic peace theory.

Keywords: republicanism, democratic peace, liberalism.

Quote 2:

“The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states.”

Understanding:

Kant imagines international cooperation through voluntary federations — something like early ideas of the United Nations. Peace requires rules and mutual agreements, not domination.

Keywords: federation, free states, cooperation.

Quote 3:

“Hospitality means the right of a stranger not to be treated with hostility when he arrives on someone else’s territory.”

Understanding:

Kant sees peaceful relations as connected to respect for human rights and hospitality. By reducing fear between states and peoples, tension decreases and cooperation grows.

Keywords: cosmopolitanism, hospitality, mutual respect.

Quote 4:

“Perpetual peace is not a natural state; it must be established.”

Understanding:

Peace requires active effort, institutions, and moral commitment. This anticipates modern liberal IR theories claiming that peace is constructed through norms and institutions.

Keywords: constructed peace, moral duty, institutions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Robert Keohane & Joseph Nye — Power and Interdependence (1977)

# data[].attributes.subject
Robert Keohane & Joseph Nye — Power and Interdependence (1977)

# data[].attributes.body
Quote 1:

“In world politics, power is becoming more diffuse.”

(Chapter 1, p. 24)

Understanding:

Keohane and Nye argue that power is no longer held only by states. NGOs, international institutions, and multinational corporations shape global outcomes.

Keywords: diffuse power, non-state actors, globalization.

Quote 2:

“Interdependence reduces the usefulness of military force.”

(Chapter 2, p. 29)

Understanding:

When states are economically connected, war becomes costly and less rational. This challenges realist assumptions by showing that cooperation can bring stability.

Keywords: interdependence, military force, economic ties.

Quote 3:

“Multiple channels connect societies.”

(Chapter 3, p. 42)

Understanding:

Politics occurs not only through official diplomacy, but also through trade, people-to-people relations, technology, and civil society.

Keywords: multiple channels, networks, global communication.

# data[].attributes.headline
George Monbiot — Billionaires Are Bad for Us (2023)

# data[].attributes.subject
George Monbiot — Billionaires Are Bad for Us (2023)

# data[].attributes.body
Quote 1:

“Billionaires are the symptoms of a broken economic system.”

(p. 1)

Understanding:

Monbiot argues that extreme wealth is not a sign of success but evidence of structural inequality. This concentration of wealth harms democracy and fairness.

Keywords: inequality, economic system, democracy.

Quote 2:

“Wealth translates into power, and power distorts democracy.”

(p. 2)

Understanding:

Money gives the super-rich influence over politics, weakening equal political participation.

Keywords: wealth, political power, democratic distortion.

Quote 3:

“No one becomes a billionaire without extracting wealth from others.”

(p. 2–3)

Understanding:

Monbiot argues that billionaire wealth is often based on exploitation — environmental, social, or labor-related.

Keywords: extraction, exploitation, economic injustice.

# data[].attributes.headline
Barry Buzan — People, States, and Fear (1983)

# data[].attributes.subject
Barry Buzan — People, States, and Fear (1983)

# data[].attributes.body
Quote 1:

“The state is not the only object of security.”

(Chapter 2, p. 21)

Understanding:

Buzan expands security beyond traditional military issues. Societies, individuals, and the international system all require protection from different kinds of threats.

Keywords: security sectors, societal security, non-military threats.

Quote 2:

“Security is a relational phenomenon.”

(Chapter 1, p. 18)

Understanding:

Security depends on relationships among states, societies, and individuals. A threat is not only material; it is also perceived.

Keywords: relational security, perception, threats.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Billionaires Are Bad for Us” by George Monbiot

November 2023

# data[].attributes.subject
“Billionaires Are Bad for Us” by George Monbiot

November 2023

# data[].attributes.body
Quote: Extreme wealth is not a sign of a healthy society; it is a symptom of a deeply broken one.

Key words: healthy sociaty, symptom, deeply broken

Research question: How does extreme wealth concentration reveal the moral and structural weaknesses of modern societies, and what does it mean for democracy and social justice?

Introduction

In article “Billionaires Are Bad for Us” (2023), George Monbiot challenges the popular idea that great wealth is a symbol of success and progress. He argues that extreme wealth is not something to admire but a warning sign of deeper problems within our society. One quote that stood out to me says, “Extreme wealth is not a sign of a healthy society; it is a symptom of a deeply broken one.” This short but powerful sentence completely changed the way I look at inequality. It made me think about what makes a society truly fair, and what values we choose to celebrate.

Monbiot’s quote highlights the contrast between a “healthy society” and a “broken” one. When I first read it, I thought about how often we admire billionaires in media, as if their wealth alone proves their intelligence or hard work. But Monbiot shows that this admiration hides uncomfortable truths: exploitation of labor, tax avoidance, and the capture of political power. If wealth keeps growing for a few while others struggle to pay rent or buy food, then the system itself is clearly unbalanced.

The word “symptom” especially caught my attention. It makes it sound as if society is sick - not because of one person’s actions, but because of something structural and moral. I realised that inequality is not an accident; it is designed and maintained by policies that benefit the rich. This made me reflect on my own role as a citizen. Maybe we can’t all change the world immediately, but we can at least question what we see and demand fairness.

Question 1:

Why do people admire billionaires instead of questioning inequality?

I think many people admire billionaires because society teaches us to connect money with success. We grow up hearing stories of “self-made” millionaires, which make wealth seem like a reward for hard work. But Monbiot’s article makes me see that most billionaires succeed because the system allows them to use loopholes and avoid responsibility. It is easier to dream of becoming rich than to face the uncomfortable truth that wealth often depends on others’ suffering. This admiration also distracts us from asking difficult questions about justice and equality.

Question 2:

How can governments and citizens reduce the effects of extreme wealth?

Reducing inequality requires cooperation between the state and society. Governments could apply higher taxes to extreme wealth, close tax havens, and ensure that corporations pay fairly. But laws alone are not enough. Citizens must also change how they think - supporting ethical companies, voting for leaders who prioritise fairness, and refusing to glorify greed. Monbiot’s argument reminded me that political change starts with awareness. If we understand how power and money work, we can demand transparency and accountability.

Question 3: How does inequality affect young people’s opportunities and future?

As a student, this question feels personal. When wealth is concentrated at the top, education, housing, and job opportunities become harder to reach for ordinary people. Many young people feel hopeless or overworked while a few enjoy unimaginable luxury. This is not only unfair but also dangerous for social trust. If people lose faith in equality, they may stop believing in democracy itself. Monbiot’s words made me realise that fighting inequality is not only about money - it is about protecting hope and possibility for future generations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, George Monbiot’s statement that “Extreme wealth is a symptom of a deeply broken society” is more than a criticism of billionaires - it is a moral reminder. It asks us to think about what kind of society we want: one that celebrates greed, or one that values fairness and human dignity. Through reading and reflecting on this article, I began to understand that inequality is not just an economic problem but a reflection of our collective values. A truly healthy society is not measured by how many billionaires it has, but by how equally opportunities and well-being are shared among all its people.

# data[].attributes.body
Karen Litfin – “The Contemplative Pause: Insights for Teaching Politics in Turbulent Times” (2018)

Main Question:

How can slowing down help me understand difficult political topics?

When I read Litfin, I understood something important about my own learning. She writes that sometimes we need to stop for a moment and just notice what we think and feel. This idea looked very simple but actually it helped me a lot because studying politics is often fast and stressful. I realised that when I slow down a little, I understand complicated things much better. Her message made me think that education is not only about information, it's also about our personal awareness. It also taught me that reflection is something like a small skill that we need to develop. Even though I did not fully get everything from the first reading, the text made me more conscious about my reactions to political things. This is why I think Litfin’s work is a good start for reflection.

C. Wright Mills – “The Sociological Imagination” (1959)

Main Question: How does connecting my personal life with larger social processes change the way I see the world?

Mills explains that our personal problems are often linked to bigger social structures. When I read this, I started to notice that many things in my life are influenced by society, not only by me. For example, the pressure to study well or the expectations from family are not only my private feelings, they are also part of the culture and social environment. This idea helped me to see the world a bit differently, maybe more widely. It also connects to Litfin, because Mills also asks us to think deeper about what is around us. I think his concept gives students more confidence because when we see the connection between the personal and the public, we understand our position in society better.

Kenneth Waltz – “Theory of International Politics” (Chapter 6)

Main Question: Why do states behave the way they do in the international system?

Waltz gave me a new way to look at world politics. He says that states act the way they do because the whole system is built in a way where there is no higher power above them. This makes states focus on security and survival. For me, this theory was hard at first but after thinking a bit more it became clearer. Waltz helped me understand that the actions of states are not always emotional or personal. There is a structure that pushes them to behave in certain ways. I also noticed a connection with Mills because both talk about how big structures influence behavior. After reading Waltz, I started to see international conflicts and alliances through a more organized, structured lens.

Alexander Wendt – “Anarchy Is What States Make of It” (1992)

Main Question: How do ideas and interactions shape international politics?

Wendt’s argument seemed very different from Waltz, but that is what made it interesting. He says that anarchy is not something fixed, it is something that states create together through their interactions and meanings. This made me think that politics is not only about power but also about ideas, trust and identities. Wendt shows that states can change their relationships if they change the way they see each other. I liked this point because it means the world is not completely predetermined. Even though some parts of the text were difficult for me, the main idea was inspiring and it gave me a more flexible view of international politics.

Conclusion

I chose these four texts because they create a clear line from personal reflection to international structures. Litfin teaches me to slow down and think carefully. Mills shows how personal life connects to society. Waltz explains how global structures shape states, and Wendt adds that ideas also matter. Together they help me understand politics from different sides and also understand myself as a student who is learning to think deeper. Studying these authors is important because they teach us to see the world not only as it is but also as something we can understand better and maybe even change.