The Topic of International Politics - Case Study Example

Is a science of international politics possible? The topic of international politics is part of a group of topics that are decidedly sociological in nature. The topics also fall under anthropological study for the way in which cultures relate to one another. However, the study of international politics as a field of science can be debated as either falling in or out of the scientific research criteria. While the events of international politics can be observed and conclusions drawn from those observations, it can also be said that because there is a deep social and emotional context to politics, science is not an adequate form of research in which to understand the nuances of political occurrences and cultural adaptations to events. As a discipline of study, international politics can be studied with a scientific approach, but the nature of the complexity of society does not truly allow scientific parameters to fully encompass the issues involved. To decide whether international politics can be studied as a science, it is first necessary to define what constitutes a scientific study of a topic. At the end of the 19th century as the pursuit of science was beginning to be done according to modern standards, definitions of science were offered in order to more clearly ascertain the nature of scientific research. According to Michels (1880), science is created when three aspects of research are utilized. First one observes, then one records those observations, and finally one draws conclusions based on what has been recorded (pp. 383). The Popular science monthly (1872) defined science more simply as a search for real truth (pp. 226). Although, this definition is complicated by philosophies on what is ’real’ and what is ’truth’. In looking at a more modern definition of science, it is difficult to find a definition that excludes any form of study. According to Vaughn and Linan-Thompson (2004), science is “the development of an objective, consistent, documented system of knowledge based on rigorous systematic observations that lead to hypotheses that are then tested and refined (pp. 4). This definition defines science as the ability to observe and record something that will lead to a conclusion which is very similar to the musings of Michels on the topic. Science, in other words, is defined by the ability to research and draw conclusions about a topic. If this is the definition of science, then any topic that has an observable aspect can be considered a science. Therefore, the topic of international politics can be viewed from a scientific point of view because the activities that occur in the international political arena can be observed, recorded, and have conclusions drawn from those observations. According to Olson and Groom (1991), noted lead writer for the New York Times and a theorist in international politics defines the concept of the science of international politics by the consequences of the tumultuous events in 1931 where by the result was a determination to seek critical and analytical thought about the problems being faced globally ( pp. 92). Hans Morgenthau gave a speech in 1978 that suggested that the development of a world government was the only path toward safety in a nuclear world. As he promoted this concept, he suggested that in creating law that is accepted globally, the safety of the world would be more assured. Morganthau was one of the founding members of a group who had theoretically disassociated themselves from the mainstream and had turned toward a concept of international political science as a means of understanding the world, rather than to embrace his original education and embrace the aspect of law as it related to international politics (Boyle, 1985, pp. 71). The issue with changing his point of view is that to do so, to embrace the need for lawyers and law making bodies is to suggest that international politics is designed and therefore not particularly observable through scientific means. Hedley Bull argued that there was a specific reason that researching the theory behind the observable occurrences, rather than just the history of the events, had importance within the discussions of international relations (Burchill, 2009, pp. 3). Bull was interested in the development of theoretical confines that would encompass the events, allowing for the assertions of certain assumptions that would then lead to a counterbalance of understanding that some of those assumptions would be false. In creating a set of theoretical hypotheses and then proving them to be true or false, the context of the history would have a deeper meaning and allow for analysis that could be measured. The purpose for pursuing international politics through this theoretical discovery mode of study is to find the potential of the human condition. According to Burchill (2009), what Bull intended was not to just merely suggest that theory of international politics was relevant to not just the capacity for prediction, but for the capacity of hope for the human race (pp. 4). However, this is the point of diversion that takes place for Morganthau when he changed his tactical theories on international relations. For Morganthau, the study of international political science was based on an extreme sense of realism. He believed that in order to understand the political climate, the truth was indisputable and provable. However, in his new assessment he embraced the law as interpretive and therefore accepted that their may be multiple versions of the truth, thus no longer accepting the science as much as the philosophical aspect of international politics. In looking at the way in which Morganthau approached international political science, one can see a flaw in that the slated realism in direct conflict with theory. In order to embrace theoretical concepts on international relations, a rejection of absolute truth would have to take place. According to Burchill (2009), the division between the purely theoretical and the realistic does not have to discount the scientific approach. The social-scientific approach to international relations allows for researchers to “rise above the social and political world they were investigating” (pp. 4). The researcher of the scientific approach can create conclusions based on provable hypotheses that have shed the gray of the theoretical and embraced the black and white of truth. However, to shed the theoretical is to dismiss the possibilities that are provided by those theories. Morgan (1987) questions the nature of international politics and suggests that this very nature is the reason that to study the field through scientific means cannot possibility explain or provide realism where realism has a great many interpretations (pp. 25). The study of international politics, according to Morgan’s opinion on the matter, is to glimpse into a form of art. This brings into question whether an art form can be quantified in respect to statistical and mathematical calculations. He argues that in order for international politics to be a researchable science, the hypotheses must be provable from a quantifiable point of view. With international politics being highly interpretive, this is not a relevant means of discovery (Morgan, 1987, pp. 26). However, Morgan (1987) does acknowledge that the truth lies somewhere in between the scientific and the artistic (pp. 26). In looking at the way in which a scientist must find quantifiable means through which to prove his theories, Morgan (1987) discusses that procedures must be repeatable and create the same outcome (pp. 26). The events of the past must be broken down into data that can be put into mathematical equations in order to create predictable results. Therefore, the science of international politics creates an almost absolutism, suggesting that the events of the past have a the power of undeniable repeatability as the events can be proven to have repeatable outcomes. The artistic point of view allows for the possibility that in similar circumstances, the nuances of the event can provide a variety of outcomes. As an example, in the scientific approach to international politics, there would be undeniable predictors that would indicate that war is impending. However, this is the essence of why using quantifiable calculations of an event such is war loses credibility. There are no specific and undeniable predictors because the human element will always have a surprising influence on the overall condition. This can work both positively and negatively toward the eventual outcome, but in a quantifiable world, the outcome would be inevitable, where in the real world, there are too many variables that cannot be quantified. The neo-realists suggest that in order to understand the sum of the whole, one must understand the variables that have given rise to a historical event and recognize the uniqueness of the circumstances and players of the event (Rothstein & Fox, 1992, pp. 37). While the realists believe that units will have predictable outcomes, the neorealist see that units will definitely not have predictable outcomes as there is no real sense of a measurable unit in international politics. Each set of events creates a unique pattern that will not be repeated. Therefore, the study of international politics cannot possibly be subject to quantification as the results of a stack of events will not necessarily be repeatable. The concept that when this happens, that will occur cannot be applied, but rather a theoretical construct will have the potential for varying outcomes. According to Morganthau, the study of international politics is in essence the study of power (Morgan, 1987, pp. 26). He admits that to study the influence of power, one must abandon calculable prospects and reach into a qualitative sense of the subject. One aspect of the study of power can be found in game theory which suggests that the preferences of those involved in politics are essential in explaining behavior and are therefore only reachable for study through qualitative means (Morgan, 1987, pp.26). According to Stanley Hoffman, the biggest issue with the study of international politics as a science is that in reaching for a quantifiable set of equations, the whole of the events will be dissected, thus rending the investigation moot (Morgan 1987, pp 29). He uses the war as an example to show that when events, personalities, military strength, etc, are broken down into components, they stop being relevant. Therefore, an attempt to study events based on broken apart concepts takes away the relationship between those concepts. The events that lead up to an important occurrence are always uniquely related and therefore must be understood through that point of view. According to Wendt (1999), there are two ways of looking at a natural or social topic. The internal structure is defined by the ingredients of its make-up. He uses the example of water as it is defined by the symbols for hydrogen and oxygen, H2O. He goes on to say that humans have a genetic structure, a doctor defines him or herself by parts of his or her experience that denote that definition, and nations are created by the organizations that are the parts of the whole (pp. 83). This defines science as these parts can be identified, pulled apart, then put back together to recreate the same result on a repeating sequence. The external structure is defined by the relationships of one entity to another. Wendt (1999), uses the example of slaves to their masters and professors to students (pp. 84). Without the one, the other has no distinction or purpose as that entity. These relationships require that the parts be considered whole, which is the central argument against the concept of international politics as science. Essentially, the politics of the world are based on the relationships that are formed between states. Without these relationships, whether they be tenuous or good, volatile or at peace, the existence of a worldwide concept would not have any meaning. Therefore, when the parts are taken individually and an attempt at quantification is made, the result is to take out of the equation the very core of the issue. The relationship between people, between cultures, and between time sequenced events are not of any value without considering the whole. Evelyn Fox Keller stated that “most scientific communities share the assumption that the universe they study is directly accessible, represented by concepts shaped not by language but only by the demand of logic and experiment” (Linklater, 2000, pp. 1682). She asserts that the sense that international politics can be quantified is a reflection of the masculine state. The need to separate the subject from the object is an attempt to assert control over the whole. Feminist theory suggests that the ideas of Morganthau have attempted to create an isolation of international politics that are defined by modes of conduct that can be predicted and rationally explained where these things cannot be held to simple rationality as the human element does not always adhere to the ration ional (Linklater, 2000, pp.1683). The irony of Morganthau is that while he stated that power was the core of a study of international politics, he attempted to assert his own control by stripping away the chaotic and asserting order to the behavior that led to events. In a scientific approach, the basic elements of the causality must have order to make the hypotheses stand against the results. In the human condition, there is no real sense of order to behavior as the influences are too numerable to calculate. It is difficult to embrace the idea that international politics can be studied as a scientific pursuit. The methodology of the scientist is based on the removal of the aspects of variation that are explained through what is irrational. The specter of human emotions hangs over the outcomes of most, if not all events of international political relevancy, thus creating variables that cannot be separated nor quantified. To create a theoretical model, the sum of the parts can be used to evaluate likely outcomes that can be suggested through similarities. However, in order to study the aspects of the topic through the scientific eye, the outcomes must deny the sense of hope that the unknown variables will be influential enough to allow a better outcome. It is the nature of hope that creates the best argument against the idea that international politics can be studied as a science. If all outcomes are predictable and can be quantified, proven absolute and true, then there is no hope. However, there is always hope. If the aspect of hope is taken away, then the existentialists win and the world is doomed no matter what is done to prevent it. There must be the hope for the human condition that better hearts will prevail sometimes over the sounds of corruption and power. The world must be able to believe that the darkness will not come to their end of the world and that all will be safe and secure. Using scientific means to suggest repeating and absolute truths takes away that hope, not only denying it to mankind, but denying that it has already been proven as a possibility. War has not always been the result of circumstances that might suggest that one will descend upon two civilizations. Without the understanding of the many ways in which the human influence will impact an event, it cannot be understood. By using means that considered purely scientific, these influences are rendered moot, just as the dissection of the many parts renders them moot. Creating an understanding of the world takes more than an equation. References Boyle, F. A. (1985). World politics and international law. Duke Press policy studies. Durham, [N.C.]: Duke University Press. Burchill, S. (2009). Theories of international relations. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Griffiths, M.(1992). Realism, idealism, and international politics: a reinterpretation. East Sussex: Routledge. Linklater, A. (2000). International relations: Critical concepts in political science. East Sussex, Routledge. Michels, J. (1880). Science. New York, N.Y.: [s.n.]. Morgan, P. M. (1987). Theories and approaches to international politics: What are we to think? New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books. Olson, W. C. & Groom, A. J. R. (1991). International relations then and now: origins and trends in interpretation. East Sussex: Routledge Rothstein, R. L & Fox, W. T. R. (1992). Evolution of theory in international relations. [S.l.]: Univ Of South Carolina Pr.. The Popular science monthly. (1872). New York: D. Appleton. Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2004). Research-based methods of reading instruction, grades K-3. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press. Read More