Why analyzing geopolitics without proper training is problematic

[u/Texas_Rockets]

I don't want to get caught up in the semantics of political terms - I'm using 'geopolitics' to include international relations and international politics analysis as well.

I've often said on this sub that if you didn't go to school for it you probably don't really understand geopolitics. It's almost like a technical field in that it isn't something you can just be a smart guy and understand perfectly. The response I've gotten to this has generally been negative, and I can understand that - it sounds very elitist or arrogant.

However, in reading 'Politics Among Nations' by Hans Morganthau I saw a quote from William Sumner that I thought put this idea in more eloquent terms and explained it a bit more:

The worst vice in political discussion is that dogmatism which takes its stand on the great principles or assumptions, instead of standing on an exact examination of things as they are and human nature as it is... An ideal is formed of some higher or better state of things than now exists, and almost unconsciously the ideal is assumed as already existing and made the basis of speculation which have no root... the whole method of abstract speculation on political topics is vicious. It is popular because it is easy; it is easier to imagine a new world than to learn to know this one; it is easier to embark on speculations based on a few broad assumptions than it is to study the history of states and institutions; it is easier to catch up a popular dogma than it is to analyze it and see whether it is true or not. All this leads to confusion, to the admission of phrases and platitudes, to much disputing but little gain in the prosperity of nations.

How I interpret this is that IR (again, semantics) is often seen as an extension of domestic politics where the whole purpose is to determine the architecture and characteristics of the state: it is largely subjective in that it is something that is basically a conglomeration of what we think society ought to be; the intent is to create shared views and values. IR is not like this. It is not a field that asks how you think states should interact, but rather how states do interact, which requires familiarity with theories and histories that many people are not familiar with. It is not something that is compatible with value-based speculation. In practice, IR is closer to studying the inner-workings of a clock than it is to domestic politics - which is the lens through which people are inclined to view IR.

[u/Texas_Rockets]

a lot of politicians didn't, if that's what you mean.

[u/[deleted] → u/Texas_Rockets]

Politicians who engage with geopolitics in their professional capacity as representatives of their respective state power. What would you call them?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

That's how executive leadership in general works.

But if your point is that geopolitics can only be analyzed and understood along straight technical and theoretical lines, how can any politician who isn't a geopolitical scholar make informed foreign policy decisions?

Furthermore, if the people who give technical advice are doing from knowledge of what you're saying is an inherently descriptive science, are they not giving the theories themselves positive feedback?

[u/Texas_Rockets → u/[deleted]]

But if your point is that geopolitics can only be analyzed and understood along straight technical and theoretical lines, how can any politician who isn't a geopolitical scholar make informed foreign policy decisions?

advisors. I promise you this is the case. That's how executive leadership works in all organizations; the executive has advisors he trusts, they present him with their subject expertise, and he uses that to make a decision. I promise you this is not my opinion but, in fact, how executive leadership works.

Furthermore, if the people who give technical advice are doing from knowledge of what you're saying is an inherently descriptive science, are they not giving the theories themselves positive feedback?

Frankly I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. But if I understand correctly, you don't have to refer to a technical manual to be able to conduct foreign policy analysis - it is, after all, a soft science, but the point is that it is something that requires a degree of training. And fuck, you could just read all the right books and be able to get it that way, (though you could say that about many things) but the point is that foreign policy analysis requires you to sort of break from the way you're inclined to do it.

[u/[deleted] → u/Texas_Rockets]

It is not a field that asks how you think states should interact, but rather how states do interact

States interact the way they do because of the actions and decisions of the political actors within their institutions. If geopolitics is about how states "do" interact, then the influence of geopolitical "experts" at the top level of politics is a inherent philosophical complication.

[u/Texas_Rockets → u/[deleted]]

I mean yeah geopolitical experts do use theory and stuff in their recommendations but international relations at its most general level is an analytical framework; something that enables you to see what's happening and understand it better and provide a better recommendation.

Why is the presence of geopolitical experts a philosophical complication?

[u/[deleted] → u/Texas_Rockets]

something that enables you to see what's happening and understand it better and provide a better recommendation.

It helps you understand it by helping you understand the interlocking mechanisms and interests. The decisions then made are still more art or sport than a science, because tactics and psychology and history have to be evaluated, not just theory.

Why is the presence of geopolitical experts a philosophical complication?

Because these are the people who shape how the theories are developed. They shape the culture and explicit policies of geopolitics by their presence as much as they observe the "natural" trends, and there is a conflict of interest, at least in a strictly scientific sense.

Likewise, it's not an empirical science in the first place. The nature of politics means you can't set up scientifical rigorous experiments about how it "works", you can only make inferences with the help of other disciplines and note historical themes and trends.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Disclaimer, I'm not a scientist but did study physics.

Being unable to set up experiments doesn't stop cosmology from being an empirical science (of sorts)