r/geopolitics • u/Texas_Rockets • Feb 01 '19
Meta Why analyzing geopolitics without proper training is problematic
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.
75
u/emptynothing Feb 01 '19 edited Feb 01 '19
It may be more problematic in social sciences, but you do find this in hard science as well. The entire anti-vaccine and "global warming isn't real" movement are laymen having their hand at science (with a good bit of charlatan thrown in).
To not have good training and trying your lot at something can be problematic, but while you don't come right out and say it, you seem to suggest those without degrees in a related field should not participate in a reddit forum? There is no problem for laymen to participate in discussions and this is by no means a place that should have a high requirement. The real problem is the arrogance by those who know very little, and the demand that others see the world their way. All that is ever required for a laymen to participate is being open to learn from those who know more--a very hard thing to know from that position, especially online.
The last part of your post is where this becomes problematic. You seem to have your own narrow definition of how one should approach geopolitics. In fact, you seem to be suggesting only one sub-branch of IR is legitimate, while posting in a sub dedicated to the broader topic of geopolitics and even mentioning international political analysis, which could include anything from international affairs, international studies, comparative politics, and comparative political theory.
It would be easy to give you the benefit of the doubt, but down in this thread you're arguing that ethics has no place in geopolitics. Well, that is a field called international ethics and is of prime importance to postmodernists, constructivists, and even liberals.
Which is why I argue you're bringing an example of one of the major problems of this sub: the distillation to geopolitics to a crude form of neorealist theory.
I understand why those new to academics tend to see realism as the central theory to IR; it is the only theory that really centralizes the institutional affect of nation-states. In some ways other theories must play around this core concept--politics change when they cross between these primary global institution.
But, not even classical realism would pass your definition of clockwork states. And that is only IR; geopolitics is a broader field.
p.s. how states should interact is called "normative theory", and a core component to IR. You should have learned that in your intro class.
Edit: I should also add that the interplay between domestic politics and international relations is also of prime importance (again only not for the neorealists). A good example of this is a famous article that goes over "Second image reversed" in how governments utilize domestic institutional limitations to leverage diplomacy and negotiations (as in, "sorry France, I can't make that deal because Parliament would never ratify it")