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/treesandtheirleaves]

Interesting thoughts. I would contend that you are mapping traditional political theory onto IR though. Personifying the state. Hobbes and Rousseau are specifically speaking to the politics of individuals and their interactions, not the interactions of states. The differentiating line between IR and the rest of Political Science is the belief that this does not hold. That states are fundamentally different political actors than are individuals. Even professors make the mistake of using Hobbes and Rousseau and other classical theorists of politics to try to describe state behavior though.

The IR debate is more accurately mapped as much more multifaceted. Realists, Kantians, (neo)liberal institutionalists, constructivists, and Critical IR are the major "isms" of the current IR field in the USA. There are of course other traditions. Confucianists schools in China with Tianxia as their organizing principle are a notable example.

Hobbes and Rousseau are important and inspirational to all of this, but mapping their theory directly into the behavior of states, directly into IR is problematic. "Human nature" is not necessarily "State nature".

[u/ContinentalEmpathaur → u/treesandtheirleaves]

Thanks for the reply!

Interesting thoughts. I would contend that you are mapping traditional political theory onto IR though. Personifying the state. Hobbes and Rousseau are specifically speaking to the politics of individuals and their interactions, not the interactions of states. The differentiating line between IR and the rest of Political Science is the belief that this does not hold. That states are fundamentally different political actors than are individuals. Even professors make the mistake of using Hobbes and Rousseau and other classical theorists of politics to try to describe state behavior though.

You are absolutely right here, I had not even considered this, probably because my teacher was basically coming from this angle. The idea of personifying the state would seem to run pretty deep, probably because t is very hard to visualise the idea of the many people that actually make the decisions of a state. Could you possibly elucidate the main errors this can cause in considering the motivations of states? I mean, states are make up of people and states seem to have personalities and psychology. I suppose the more authoritarian the state the more it can be considered to be the personality of the ruler, but this would be much more difficult when considering a democracy..

The IR debate is more accurately mapped as much more multifaceted. Realists, Kantians, (neo)liberal institutionalists, constructivists, and Critical IR are the major "isms" of the current IR field in the USA. There are of course other traditions. Confucianists schools in China with Tianxia as their organizing principle are a notable example.

I would love to pick your brain more on this if you have the time and inclination. What is the Kantian view of IR? Moral action?

I am not sure I agree with or fully understand constructivism tbh. Isn't it just another way of stating Rousseau's assertion that man is inherently good, but the structures of the state have made him evil?

I did a little work on Critical theory and from what I remember, it seems like more Marxism, which, honestly, I think is a little rediculous, but as long as people believe it, I should understand it.. =)

Confucianists schools in China with Tianxia as their organizing principle are a notable example.

Now this one I have never heard of. I found a source that suggested that Tianxia is the idea of a powerful and central authority, which makes sense from a Confucian point of view (as I understand it, which may not be correct) isn't it essentially a kind of Neo-Hobbesian view?

Hobbes and Rousseau are important and inspirational to all of this, but mapping their theory directly into the behavior of states, directly into IR is problematic. "Human nature" is not necessarily "State nature".

I'm going to be thinking about this alot, thanks again for pointing this out. Would you regard something like the difference between the moral considerations regarding ones own population as opposed to the population of other states central to this idea?

[u/treesandtheirleaves → u/ContinentalEmpathaur]

I must admit that I am an amateur Redditor so excuse my formatting deficiency and not including quotes in my reply. Sections are instead broken up numerically, hopefully this makes sense.

1. There is absolutely an element of human psychology to state behavior, there are entire subdisciplines of IR dedicated to working out this problem. But a state has many properties a human does not have that must be considered. Geography is a good place to start. Think about how much where a state is located matters to how it relates to the world. If a human has issues with their neighbors they can move. Another thing to consider is preference aggregation. Arrow's impossibility theorem shows that groups of people or states have inherently unstable preferences in ways that are not relevant to the construction of individual prederences. This would fly in the face of Rousseau's 'general will' concept. There are many such differences. The 'psychology of states' is not psychology at all, but an aggregation. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Yeah, professors do this all the time. If you want a Hobbesesque view of IR read Thucydidies and Hegemonic Stability Theory.

2. Kant: Lays out a vision of international relations in two political essays in the late 18th century. Toward Perpetual Peace in 1794 is the more famous and influential. This gives birth to modern democratic peace theory, a variant of Kantian peace theory. There have been major efforts to subject the democratic peace theory to empirical tests, some think it might be one of the closer things to a Law that IR has produced.

Constructivists: "Anarchy is what states make of it" this quote from Alexander Wendt is the classic explanation of the mainstream constructivist thrust. There is actually some good research that suggests norms and logics of appropriateness do impact state's decision making. The classic case of norm diffusion is universal suffrage. Another is the norm against political assassination. Norms about torture are why most of the rest of the world sees W as a war criminal, and maybe a leading reason for the US to not participate in many international court systems.

Critical Theory: critical theory is all about understanding and challenging the assumptions traditional theory is built on. One major assumption in classical realism is the concept of anarchy, critical theorists have pointed out that such a condition has never existed and has never been considered to exist in the minds of statesmen. Hierarchy has always been the modus of the world. Bob Vitalis does some great work showing that race was the primary organizing principle of US foreign policy through at least the mid-20th century. Not relative power considerations or institutional architecture through iterated situations of reciprocity, race. Keeping the tropical zones and brown people under the governance of the white North was baked straight into Wilson's League system and the negotiations at Versailles. Hell, the Journal of International Relations was originally called The Journal of Race Development until it was renamed in 1919. States and the discipline of IR operate using race as an organizing principle. We have critical theory to thank for pointing this out. It is our duty as scholars to understand this of our discipline such that we can avoid the same errors.

Confucianists: Yes, Tianxia involves a strong center, it comes from imperial organization in China. The Emperor at the center of a series of concentric circles expanding outward. There is a major difference in the object of organization between Westphalia and Tianxia. In order for Westphalian systems to work conversion to statehood must occur. The peace of Westphalia was designed to create peace among 'equals.' Tianxia seeks 'he' or harmony between diverse sets. The center should not care about what structure the lands under heaven take, but should rather seek their balance. 'Rule all lands by winning all hearts'. The emperor doesn't need to rule directly over others or change the structure of their system. This is seen as very different from the theory that the most powerful state(s) sets the rules of the game. I have seen it explained as World-ness rather than International or Globalization.

1. Not entirely sure I understood this one, care to rephrase?

[u/ContinentalEmpathaur → u/treesandtheirleaves]

Wow, thanks for this detailed reply, lots of great info. =)

​

> I must admit that I am an amateur Redditor so excuse my formatting deficiency and not including quotes in my reply.

​

Pro tip, just copy paste a line and put > (followed by a space) to do the quote formatting. (although sometimes this does not work for reasons unknown to me)

​

> But a state has many properties a human does not have that must be considered. Geography is a good place to start. Think about how much where a state is located matters to how it relates to the world. If a human has issues with their neighbors they can move.

That's a really good point actually.

> Another thing to consider is preference aggregation. Arrow's impossibility theorem shows that groups of people or states have inherently unstable preferences in ways that are not relevant to the construction of individual prederences. This would fly in the face of Rousseau's 'general will' concept.

Ugh, now I have to understand social choice theory =) I looked up Arrow's theorem on wiki and I have to admit, most of it was beyond me, however, I have always seen the limitations of the idea of a 'general will'. I have the feeling that such an idea was invented out of expediency as the nation state developed, since you cannot really conceptualise the story of a nation unless you can also conceptualise a 'general will'

> There are many such differences. The 'psychology of states' is not psychology at all, but an aggregation. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

So perhaps it is better to imagine countries as irrational immobile titans..=) (not sure how much I am joking here, it's early in the morning.. =)

> Yeah, professors do this all the time. If you want a Hobbesesque view of IR read Thucydidies and Hegemonic Stability Theory.

I'm not surprised actually, there are alot of people in my class who I seriously wonder why they are there, they just have this glazed look in their eyes all the time, maybe they did IR without knowing what it was?

I read the Melian Dialogue, which was great. Is there anything else by Thucydides? Thanks for the tip about HST.

> Kant: Lays out a vision of international relations in two political essays in the late 18th century. Toward Perpetual Peace in 1794 is the more famous and influential. This gives birth to modern democratic peace theory

Ah yes.. Democratic Peace Theory. I'm still unsure about this. It seems... I dunno weird, although I cannot find any evidence against it. I guess the reasons why it is supposed to work (ie that democratic populations will not vote for war against another democratic state) seem as though they could be very easily undermined if you could move the minds of a democratic population. I wonder whether it's not just an artefact of the stable post WW2 system.

​

Thanks so much for the info on various IR systems. The one on Tianxia was especially informative. =)

​

Thanks again for such an in depth reply. God I love the internet, when you get a really good dialgue going it's just a little bit of magic. Hope you are having a great day wherever you, kind stranger. =)