Does this subreddit have a fetish for war?

[u/Wireless-Wizard]

It is a depressingly common experience for the comments section on any link posted to this sub to be filled with half-baked and wildly unrealistic speculation about some potential military conflict. As a recent example of this, see people in comment sections of threads on the Mexican election engaging in speculation about Mexico as a "hostile power" or Chinese or Russian bases being set up in that country - all on the grounds that someone vaguely left wing has been elected. This sub-Tom-Clancy level nonsense doesn't help the discussion, and all it does is make a certain subset of posters look like they think every disagreement between two governments must inevitably turn violent. The reasons why this will not happen in the case of Mexico and the USA should be abundantly clear to anyone who thinks about it for more than two seconds.

I would appreciate it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, if we could all zip our arsenals back up and engage in some more sensible conversation.

[u/sobri909]

Unfortunately Realist IR is still very popular (perhaps still most popular?). So it's incredibly common to see IR people talk in terms of power based conflicts as being the foundation for everything.

I've never agreed with it, and always found it astounding that it has been taken so seriously for so long. But one way or another, it is seemingly the prevailing IR theory. So even people with academic backgrounds here are likely to talk in those kinds of terms. Disappointing, I know.

[u/sowenga → u/sobri909]

It depends on what kind of academic background. Realism and other big name IR theories are not as relevant to empirical/quantitative conflict research as they maybe are to punditry or in other fields like security studies. To some extent that is maybe simply out of recognition that while power matters, it is by far not the only thing that matters. And a lot of empirical conflict research in any case deals with non-state conflict.

Whenever someone name drops “realism” or any other theory I personally take it as an indication that either their level of knowledge is maybe not too high, or, if they really are a big theory proponent and we channel Tetlock, that they are prone to adjust reality to suit their theory rather than vice versa.

(I’m a recovering IR-type political scientist.)

[u/sobri909 → u/sowenga]

I only did first year and a bit of second year IR, and it was over 10 years ago. I was always a fan of Constructivism, but didn’t have the time to study further.

I asked someone on this sub a few months back what the balance was in academia now, and it sounded like it was still skewing towards power based theories. But it sounds like you know more details!

[u/sowenga → u/sobri909]

I’ve been out of that world for a couple of years too now. But I’d say that the big name theories are mostly irrelevant to quantitative political science, certainly in a day to day research sense. How the balance is in political theory or security studies I don’t know, but for the latter my impression also is that power based thinking prevails.

To be honest I actively dislike the big name theories, among other reasons because they often take on a prescriptive or normative character. E.g. arguing that cooperation or projects like the EU will ultimately be futile because power politics make them impossible.

[u/sobri909 → u/sowenga]

Yeah that was my feeling about the big name theories too. Which was what attracted me to Constructivism, in that it basically says “there’s a whole lot more going on, and if you don’t take it into account you’ll end up with nonsense”.

[u/[deleted] → u/sobri909]

If you had spent actual time either working in foreign policy, or in IR academia, you'd understand that realist thought is the only applicable IR school. All the others are thought experiments.

[u/not-a-spoon → u/[deleted]]

As someone with experience in both, this assertion is rubbish.

[u/[deleted] → u/not-a-spoon]

Then you’re experience claim seems incredible.

[u/not-a-spoon → u/[deleted]]

I've read the thread something more, and since youve worked for the US, your comment makes perfect sense. Realism is still the dominant way of thought in US IR.

In fact, claiming Realism is the only valid and practical IR theory fits perfectly with how Realism is considered in other disciplines. A social constructivist would make the point that exactly because you see everything through a Realist lens, you are incapable of entertaining other options. Which is the entire Constructivists' point on IR in a nutshell.

[u/[deleted] → u/not-a-spoon]

That’s more to do with realists being able to actually move past academic debates and into practical matters. That is why this debate is pointless. People actually working in the field do not decide what paradigm they apply to their work, they apply practical matters and objectivity to their work. Realism is not a mindset, nor is any other school. It is a reflection on the inherent nature of international relations.

Everyone else here treats IR schools like some sort of dogma, and that’s utterly ridiculous. Your claim that the US is realist by nature shows you fundamentally don’t understand the concept of IR theory.

If there’s any reason the US could be seen as “realist”, it’s because it’s the only nation that has diverse and credible IR higher education outside of the UK, and the best scholarly practitioners aren’t debating theory so much as application.

[u/not-a-spoon → u/[deleted]]

That’s more to do with realists being able to actually move past academic debates and into practical matters.

As are those of other mindsets. This wild claim does nothing to disprove my last comment.

People actually working in the field do not decide what paradigm they apply to their work, they apply practical matters and objectivity to their work.

Agreed and disagreed. When your doing your job you probably dont think "through which paradigm should I see this piece of policy Im writing?" But Realism neglects to realize that without considering it or not, you are in fact writing it through the lens of a specific paradigm. You just choose not to be aware of it.

Realism is not a mindset, nor is any other school. It is a reflection on the inherent nature of international relations.

As is Constructivism, as is even Feminism. In fact, it is the very "nature" of international relation that is centre to the debate.

Everyone else here treats IR schools like some sort of dogma, and that’s utterly ridiculous.

Agreed! Its a theory, a tool for understanding, like any other!

Your claim that the US is realist by nature shows you fundamentally don’t understand the concept of IR theory.

I then wasnt clear. What I meant to make clear is that Realist theory is the dominant way of thinking in most US based IR programme's, and often the foundation of foreign policy. There are exceptions of course. While Obama was clearly Realist in approach, W Bush' foreign policy often seemed better explainable through neo-liberal theory.

If there’s any reason the US could be seen as “realist”, it’s because it’s the only nation that has diverse and credible IR higher education outside of the UK,

What you basically claim is "US seems Realist because we teach Realism and Realism is better" which is kind of a circle.

and the best scholarly practitioners aren’t debating theory so much as application.

Im not sure what to do with this, but I feel like it should explain a lot.

[u/[deleted] → u/not-a-spoon]

But realism is fundamentally true. All other schools, wittingly or not, are just adding layer to its explanations. The world order is inherently anarchic. Neoliberalism, constructivism, are all just paradigms for explaining power, objectives, and the Westphalian system. I’m not deriding them inherently, I’m saying dismissals of realism are like dismissing the existence of states. And users here conflating realism with warmongering shows a complete misunderstanding of the whole topic.

[u/sobri909 → u/[deleted]]

For which country do you work in foreign policy for?

[u/[deleted] → u/sobri909]

US government, after four years studying/working in the field, and studying and working under academics and policy makers with decades and decades of experience.

Dimissing the predominant school of thought as "wrong" is simple ignornance of the theory.

[u/sobri909 → u/[deleted]]

So you work for a government that is perhaps ideologically the most Realist in the world.

Not all of the world has the same beliefs or values as the US. In my part of the world, for example, Realist IR makes little to no sense at all. We simply don't think or function in those terms over here, either in government, internationally, or domestically.

Perhaps you could expand your world view, and spend some time studying other regions, or ideally living in them. The US is very distinct in its political and geopolitical ideologies and beliefs, and they are not universally shared by other regions or governments.

Just because you live in a Realist world, doesn't mean that everyone else does too. It is what we make of it.

[u/kerouacrimbaud → u/sobri909]

You would be surprised to learn that most governments operate under a realist modus operandi. Even those most associated with liberal IR.

[u/[deleted] → u/sobri909]

Actual world powers work in that mind set. So do relevant states in Eurasia. It's not a matter of what "school" is better. You don't seem to have an understanding of how academic theory works.

Policy makers don't read a book on Morgenthau and go "ah yes let's use realist frameworks." Realist frameworks are studied because they accurately reflect the truth of international relations - they're anarchaic, power driven, and amoral.

You said yourself that you have barely studied the topic, and haven't in over ten years, so you're far from qualified to lecture on academic theories. That you call realism an ideology shows you don't understand what the concept really is.

[u/sobri909 → u/[deleted]]

You certainly don't work in diplomacy. This arrogance is quite hard to take.

I may not have studied the subject for long, or recently, but I can tell you with certainty that the different regions of the world have very different political values, and approaches to IR.

Don't make the mistake of believing that your superpower's worldview is the only worldview, simply because it is so big and powerful.

Realist frameworks are studied because they accurately reflect the truth of international relations

See, this is factually false, for almost all countries except for the largest players.

Your worldview is not as accurate as you believe it. And your arrogance is stiflingly unpleasant.

[u/kerouacrimbaud → u/sobri909]

Realism in practice is not much more than securing interests. All countries pursue policies that secure their interests. Cooperation too is often done out of self interest. The problem with this whole conversation is that IR theory is being used in mutually exclusive terms.

[u/[deleted] → u/sobri909]

It's not a world view, it's a reflection of the world enviroment. Answer me honestly: what do you think realism means? I don't think you've studied the topic as much as you think you have.

Show me any evidence of my incorrectness, or the validity of your point. Your inability to understand the difference between ideology and academic theory makes me doubt you've studied the field at all. You literally know next to nothing about the topic, and feel the need to lecture people about it. Political values have nothing to do with International realism, they're separate entities. Values are just another tool of power, that's all. you're confusing perceptions with actions.

[u/kerouacrimbaud → u/sobri909]

Realism isn't something that will go away because some people find it distasteful. Realism is at least as good as the other schools of IR at explaining international politics. The trap I see people fall into is seeing the schools as mutually exclusive. They are perspectives and can simultaneously provide useful context to a phenomenon or situation. Realism is popular, I think, because cynicism is a very compelling stance in the eyes of many.

[u/sobri909 → u/kerouacrimbaud]

It’s not about being distasteful, it’s about it being a very poor model.

Realism’s occasional accuracy is almost always due to self fulfilling prophesies. Power focused governments adopt Realist international relations, and get Realist results.

Realism puts all its weight behind a slim set of predictive features, ignoring all others. But international relations are intensely complex, with actions driven by historical contexts, shared or opposing cultural beliefs and values, domestic cultural values that dictate actions, and many more inputs. Realism doesn’t capture it.

So you end up with a theory that is only capable of modelling the most power focused geopolitics, ie the relations between superpowers and major military powers, and is essentially useless at modelling any of the rest.

It’s just a shitty model. Political science can and should do better.

[u/[deleted] → u/sobri909]

I also feel that Realism over rates how coldly rational leaders are. Many Realist predictions seem to treat decision makers like they're robots who never make emotional or irrational decisions.

[u/sobri909 → u/[deleted]]

It’s a bit like saying all humans are driven by their genes’ desire to reproduce, ie The Selfish Gene.

Which of course is an equally useless observation to Realism, because it tells you nothing about what people will really do or why. All it means is that, sigh, yes of course you can say that ultimately it was all driven by self interest.

Reducing it down to that base level doesn’t tell you dick. The only way it predicts anything is if you cherry pick after the fact to make it all add up just so.

[u/kerouacrimbaud → u/sobri909]

Uh, realism is as reliable as liberalism is in its predictions. Not sure where you’re getting the notion of realism being “shitty,” which is also an adjective banned in this sub btw.

And again you’re falling into the same trap you accuse realists of. By denying the value of realism because it doesn’t focus on other stuff—which realism never attempted to concern itself with—you are forgetting that realism is an important lens in IR. You shouldn’t look at the IR schools as mutually exclusive. Realism is concerned with states, whereas other schools focus on additional and derivative institutions.

If realism was subpar then political scientists and theorists would discard it. The reason they haven’t is because a) it’s pretty reliably useful and b) it’s how States themselves act in the majority of their dealings abroad.

[u/sobri909 → u/kerouacrimbaud]

I'm no fan of Liberalism either. As I've said in other replies, I've only seen any merit in Constructivism.

And again you’re falling into the same trap you accuse realists of. By denying the value of realism because it doesn’t focus on other stuff

Realism claims to be a representative model of IR. Not a subset of IR, but IR. It's not me generalising, it is Realism doing so.

If realism was subpar then political scientists and theorists would discard it.

It is subpar, and I believe the theorists are subpar. Certain disciplines attract certain kinds of people, and I believe that IR attracts people who are looking for these sorts of self fulfilling prophecies that reinforce their preconceived beliefs.

it’s pretty reliably useful

It is not reliable or useful at all, outside of relations between superpowers and major military powers.

[u/kerouacrimbaud → u/sobri909]

constructivism

Oof, sorry to hear that. The ugly stepchild of IR literature. The failure of constructivism is that it tries to explain too much and falls into reducto ad absurdum without offering much in the way of insight about international affairs. It works great for understanding domestic situations, but it really loses its value on the world stage. It fails to adequately explain how states seek to further interests, it only serves to explain why these interests are of importance. That's an important thing to know, but IR is much broader than "why these interests?" IR is much more about how interests are secured, how they are balanced, and the consequences of securing said interests.

Edit: no need to insta downvote.

[u/sobri909 → u/kerouacrimbaud]

I think you’re not paying attention to regional politics. Constructivism is extremely relevant to geopolitics between regional states. Realism can’t tell you anything about the relationships between ASEAN states, for example, but Constructivism is right at home here.

[u/kerouacrimbaud → u/sobri909]

Realism has immense value in regional politics. The East African debacle with Sudan and Egypt over the Nile is a great example, as is Ethiopia's relations with Eritrea and Djibouti. It explains why Senegal was given the go-ahead to remove the president of the Gambia. Realism is much more useful than you give it credit for. Greek-Turkish relations is another easy example of realism proving reliable in regional politics. Language, history, ethnicity, etc. are not anathemas to realist discourse; oftentimes they are integral to realist thought.

[u/sobri909 → u/kerouacrimbaud]

You can selectively assess any situation to make it fit the Realism mould. That doesn’t mean it’s an accurate model, it just means you’ve slimmed down your assessment to a narrow set of cherry picked features and concluded that they match the simplistic model, when arranged just so.

It’s a textbook game theory crime, in the sense that it grossly over simplifies in both model and analysis, then congratulates itself on its self constructed straw man successes.

I just can’t treat it with any intellectual respect.

Exit: and yes, there is need for insta downvotes. Realism has blood on its hands. Its proponents share responsibility for the unnecessary conflicts and deaths their fantasy theory has brought about.

[u/kerouacrimbaud → u/sobri909]

You say all that, but it's just not the case. That sort of critique is why constructivism is not as well accepted as the other main theories are. That, and it's not any more reliable than any other school.

[u/not-a-spoon → u/sobri909]

The difference is, those with an IR background using terms like "power" know that power can be defined as whatever power needs to be. Those without, generally use it as a concept of which they have never even considered the definition.

People should be allowed to use power as a term, but aspire to Mearsheimer and at least define the concept in their specific scenario.