One thing that I’ve noticed in talking to high school students from high-income families in which both parents have a lot of fancy degrees is that a lot of these young people want to major in “international relations” once they get to college. And in fact quite a few colleges offer this major (partial list; list of schools outside the U.S.).
This leads to the stupid question of the day: If so many people around the world are studying international relations, why are countries constantly fighting? (if not always in a shooting war then at least some sort of verbal conflict)
Slightly less stupid question: What do young people actually learn when they study “international relations”? Presumably they can’t get hands-on experience negotiating agreements!
The presumption is that the purpose of these programs is to promote peace. It’s quite reasonable to consider another hypothesis: these programs are training grounds for people who want to exercise power/influence via the organs of the state/corporations which of course is a highly remunerative profession. In this scenario, peace, if any is an inadvertent side effect.
The sanskrit word for war translates literally as “desire for more cattle.”
Studying International Relations does not move the cattle from one country to the other magically. I am pretty sure there are other forces involved.
Fighting is simply the eusocial evolutionary behavior that has made the current societies the dominant existing cultural groups on earth. Even the most primitive cultures are found waring between neighboring tribes. Simply it’s survival of the fittest on a socialized scale.
Maybe they think that international relations means having sex while studying abroad.
The only guy I knew with a degree in international relations went on to be a bomber pilot for the navy. That explains the fighting?
If there’s so many people studying medicine, why are people still dying?
If so many people around the world are studying international relations, why are countries constantly fighting?
Simple: different countries have different interests. Everyone wants power over others, while nobody wants others to have power over them. Douglas Adams: “It is difficult to be sat on all day, every day, by some other creature, without forming an opinion on them. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to sit all day, every day, on top of another creature and not have the slightest thought about them whatsoever.”
The key difference between international politics and domestic politics is that in international politics, there’s no central authority to enforce laws and resolve disputes. So if you have a conflict with a neighbor, you need to rely on the three basic elements of diplomacy: persuasion (convincing the neighbor that it’s their own interest to do what you want), compromise (offering something they want in exchange for what you want), threats (if they don’t do what you want, prepare for war).
For a concrete example of this kind of negotiation, see the first episode of the British TV series The Sandbaggers (1978-1980), in which the protagonist, director of a three-man special ops team, deals with Norwegian and American counterparts.
What do young people actually learn when they study “international relations”?
The languages, literature, history, and culture of the country or countries you expect to be dealing with. If you’re going to be negotiating with Russians, say, you want to be able to think like they do. Georgetown, for example, offers specializations in Arab studies, Asian studies, Russian and East European studies, etc.
I suspect that students study International Relations because they think that will get them a glamorous job with the Department of State or CIA. Well, that and they’re not smart enough to study engineering or medicine.
@billg: The only guy I knew with a degree in international relations went on to be a bomber pilot for the navy.
If I had a dollar for every guy that said he was a pilot for the Navy…
Heck, even GWB was a “fighter pilot.”
I always thought the goal of an “international relations” degree was learning how to get others to pick up your travel tab.
GWB WAS a fighter pilot. He never saw combat but just flying an F-102 was plenty dangerous enough. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-declining goes into some detail.
When I was a study abroad student (in Digital Linguistics), the Int’l Relations students would stop me on campus from time to time because there was a class assignment to interview a foreigner about something.
They all seemed to be studying a foreign language or two plus an ordinary set of social science classes. Probably it’s the usual story. Get experience writing a coherent memo and finishing an assignment on time and you can get a job. It’s more fun than economics and you don’t have to pass calculus. Plus foreigners are more interesting than accountants. I’m not sure learning a foreign language well is easier than calculus, but the grading is much, much easier. (I learned a foreign language as an adult and it was ten times harder than five semesters of calculus and real analysis were, but I don’t think the classes actually require you to speak it fluently in order to pass.)
One of my friends there actually got a fancy internship at the local State Department. She was flighty but smart. Ended up in a secure but less interesting government career.
“, why are countries constantly fighting?”
The world is as safe as it has ever been. War is as rare as it has ever been. Today’s diplomats might not be the main cause of that but they certainly aren’t screwing it up. See Pinker’s Better Angels.
I’d wager than most people have problems with their neighbors in proportion to the number of countries that have conflicts with others. People just don’t get along unless everyone else is similarly like them.
Then of course you have the division where some people are content to do what they will and for others to follow suit, as long as there is no direct conflict. As in being able to play loud music during the day, but not all night long. And then there are the people who feel it’s their duty to dictate to others how they should live their lives.
These conflicts are all pretty simple though.
– You’re living on land that used to be my land and you took it
– I want to expand my land into areas that will cause disagreement
– You’re different from me in some way that annoys me to the point where I’ll commit violence, and this goes back for generations
– You have something valuable that I want and I have the power to take it
– I’m a strongman/dictator and I’m trying to show off how powerful I think I am
Most of this can be boiled down to the desire for expansion of space or idealism. If everyone just minded their own business, things would be a bit simpler.
I completed an IR course during undergrad.
The average kids learn that there are several different theories that might possibly explain why things happen in geopolitics.
The smart kids learn that nations have interests, not allies, and economics (including behavioral) dictates policy.
James: economics (including behavioral) dictates policy.
I laughed when I read this — it’s a commonly held misunderstanding. I’m reminded of Roger Zelazny’s joke about reductionism in Lord of Light (1967): “You fertility deities are worse than Marxists.”
Hans Morgenthau, writing in Politics Among Nations:
If you’re looking for a single reductionist motive that drives international politics, it would not be greed, but fear. See The Parable of the Tribes.
Russil Wvong: I laughed when I read this — it’s a commonly held misunderstanding.
I was puzzled when I read this – I don’t think you understood what I meant.
Economics suggests that actors look out for their own interests, but what those interests are could be any number of things; greed can drive action, as can envy, or fear as you suggest.
James: what made me laugh was your comment about “the smart kids.” You know how 80% of drivers think that they’re better than average? If you find yourself smugly thinking that you’re smarter than everyone else, you should consider the possibility that you may be misinformed.
Economics suggests that actors look out for their own interests–
Economics focuses on individual incentives. You were talking about nation-level interests. In your understanding, what’s the connection between the individual incentives and the nation-level incentives? (You should not assume that if a group of people would benefit from some course of action, then the individuals in that group will therefore all pursue that course of action.)
Economics also assumes that individual actors are basically rational, and have a basically complete set of information. It’s hard to reconcile this with well-known examples of folly on the part of nations, from the Athenian expedition to Syracuse to the Vietnam War to the 2003 Iraq War.
I prefer Hans Morgenthau’s description: War carries with it an element of irrationality and chaos which is alien to the very spirit of capitalism.
Hello Russil,
I certainly don’t think I’m smarter than *everyone* else – far from it – however I do think I was smarter than most kids in my IR class!
Microeconomics does focus on individual incentives, but individuals can also be collective organizations that roughly function as one (i.e. corporations). If I am a shareholder of a corporation, it is roughly in my best interest for that corporation to maximize profits. Similarly, macroeconomics also focuses on “individual” incentives, but individuals are considered governments, central banks, etc. If food prices go down for my country as a whole, that is roughly in my best interest as well.
Economics assumes that individual actors are *individually* rational, meaning they look out for their own self interest; what exactly that self interest is could be indecipherable to another. This is why I included the statement on behavioral economics.
Every year 2 million Americans get married. Presumably, at least some of the men involved in traditional marriages follow cultural convention and purchase a diamond ring for their wife at +/- 2 months of their salary. Spending 2 months of one’s salary for a lump of the 4th most abundant element in the universe is, to me, economically irrational, but clearly it makes sense to some people!
Moving the conversation to email, but I’ll make one final comment: it’s a big leap from individuals to groups, because of collective action problems. From the entry on methodological individualism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: