Latest / Diplomacy and International Relations / Summer 04: Theoretical Lenses for International Relations

Transcript

Summer 04: Theoretical Lenses for International Relations · Diplomacy and International Relations

0:00
You know, usually when we talk about a medical diagnosis, there
0:05
is this very comforting expectation of precision, right?
0:08
Like it feels almost like engineering.
0:10
Yeah, absolutely. It's very mechanical.
0:12
Right. If you take a bad fall on a ski
0:14
slope and you know your arm swells up, you go get an X-ray
0:17
and the image comes back and you see that jagged glowing white
0:21
line across the radius bone. And the doctor just points at
0:24
the screen and says, well, there it is.
0:27
That is the problem. It's entirely binary.
0:30
It's either broken or it isn't. Exactly.
0:32
And I mean, that binary gives us a really profound sense of
0:36
psychological security. We inherently crave a reality
0:39
where problems are, you know, visible, neatly categorized, and
0:44
therefore solvable with just a standard cast and six weeks of
0:47
rest. Right.
0:47
But then you step into the realm of international relations and
0:50
you realize almost immediately that the X-ray machine is
0:53
fundamentally broken. Or, well, maybe it was just
0:56
never plugged in to begin with. Yeah, that's a great way to put
0:59
it. We are looking at this global
1:00
diagnostic landscape that just isn't a neat fracture.
1:05
It's murky, it's chaotic, and it's overflowing with
1:08
contradictory symptoms. I mean, we're watching wars
1:11
breakout, trade agreements collapse, historical alliances
1:14
fracture. And there is no single
1:16
diagnostic tool that can just, you know, point to the screen
1:19
and say, ah, yes, here's the clean break in the international
1:23
system. No, it is the absolute
1:24
definition of diagnostic Muddy Waters.
1:27
The daily flow of global news is just a barrage of seemingly
1:31
random, often terrifying and deeply complex events, and
1:36
without a framework to process that information, it just looks
1:39
like noise. Which brings us to the core of
1:41
our discussion today. For those of you joining us for
1:43
this 4th deep dive in our summer series on diplomacy and
1:45
international relations, we are tackling a question that sits
1:48
beneath every single news headline you read.
1:51
With all this chaotic flow of daily events, why do we actually
1:55
need theory to make sense of international politics?
1:57
If you've been with us for the first 3 deep dives, you know
2:00
we've laid some serious groundwork.
2:02
We've traced the sweeping history of the modern world,
2:06
unpacked the intricate, often hidden mechanics of diplomacy,
2:10
and mapped out the massive cast of actors operating on the world
2:14
stage. Yeah, we covered a lot of
2:15
ground. It really did.
2:17
But today we are talking about the toolkit you need to actually
2:21
interpret how all those actors collide.
2:24
Oh, and real quick, before we get into it, if you're enjoying
2:26
the series, make sure to follow and subscribe.
2:29
And you know, if you want to help keep the show running,
2:31
check out our Patreon. The link is in the description.
2:33
Yeah, and subscribing there grants you access to extra deep
2:36
dives, plus our exclusive weekly and monthly briefings that are
2:40
specifically focused on Danish politics, which is super helpful
2:44
for applying these big ideas locally.
2:47
Exactly. So, OK, back to theory.
2:49
How do we even begin to define what theory is in this context?
2:53
Well, I like to think of theory as the operating system for your
2:57
geopolitical brain. OK, I like that.
2:59
Because if you try to process every single diplomatic cable,
3:02
every military movement, every economic shift as just raw data,
3:06
you will crash. You know, theory gives you the
3:09
algorithm to filter the noise and find the signal.
3:11
Yeah, I often visualize it like a set of prescription glasses or
3:15
maybe different camera filters on your phone.
3:17
Oh, that's a good analogy. Right.
3:19
Like you take a photo of a crowded city street.
3:21
That is the raw data, the actual event.
3:24
Now, if you apply a high contrast black and white filter,
3:28
the image suddenly looks gritty, dangerous, bleak.
3:32
Your eyes are drawn to the shadows and the isolation of the
3:34
figures. But if you swipe and apply a
3:37
warm vintage golden hour filter to the exact same photo, it
3:41
suddenly looks cooperative, nostalgic, community oriented.
3:45
Yeah, your focus totally shifts. Exactly.
3:47
Your eyes are drawn to the people talking on the corner.
3:50
The underlying picture hasn't changed by a single pixel, but
3:53
the filter completely changes the focal point and the story
3:56
you tell about that street. That is a phenomenal way to
3:59
conceptualize it. The filter dictates the
4:01
narrative, and our goal today, using some highly comprehensive
4:06
academic source material on international relations theory,
4:09
is to basically hand you those different filters, right?
4:11
We want to show you how applying these different theoretical
4:14
lenses completely alters your understanding of the exact same
4:18
global events. And I want to pause here because
4:20
looking through the sources, the first major hurdle for anyone
4:24
getting into this is just understanding what we actually
4:27
mean by theory in this context. Yeah, I can be intimidating.
4:31
It really can. And the literature draws a very
4:34
hard line between two types of theory, right?
4:37
Empirical and normative. Let's break those down.
4:39
Yeah, this distinction is crucial because it dictates the
4:42
entire purpose of your analysis. So an empirical theory is
4:46
strictly observational. It attempts to explain the world
4:49
based on measurable historical experiences.
4:52
So is looking at what's already there.
4:53
Exactly. It is trying to describe how the
4:56
world actually is. An empirical theorist will look
4:58
at, say, a trade war and attempt to measure the tangible material
5:02
factors. Like tariffs or supply chain
5:05
disruptions that sort of. Thing right, Tariffs, domestic
5:07
employment rates, things that caused it.
5:09
They are looking purely for cause and effect.
5:12
OK, so that's like the scientists just measuring the
5:13
temperature of the water? Exactly.
5:15
But then the normative theory comes in, and this feels, I
5:18
don't know, much more like philosophy.
5:20
To me, normative theories build on principles of how social
5:24
interactions ought to be. Yes.
5:26
They are prescriptive, not just descriptive.
5:28
That's right. Normative theorists look at the
5:31
international system and they evaluate it against a moral
5:35
baseline. They might say, well, based on
5:37
the universal value of human rights, this is the direction
5:40
the international system should be moving.
5:42
OK. And here is how we engineer the
5:44
institutions to actually get us there.
5:46
Which perfectly explains why debates in international
5:50
relations get so incredibly heated.
5:52
Oh, completely. I mean, if I'm operating on an
5:54
empirical level, just arguing about the math of a missile
5:57
trajectory, and you are operating on a normative level,
6:01
arguing about the morality of possessing the missile at all,
6:05
we aren't even having the same conversation.
6:07
No, you're talking past each other.
6:10
And this is exactly why stepping into theory requires what the
6:13
literature calls a paradigm shift.
6:15
Right, Thomas Kuhn's concept. Yes, Thomas Kuhn, his concept of
6:19
the paradigm chief, is foundational here.
6:22
A paradigm is basically the accepted framework of basic
6:25
concepts, assumptions, and practices within any discipline.
6:29
Kuhn argued that scientific progress isn't just this slow,
6:33
steady accumulation of facts. It happens in violent ruptures.
6:37
The classic example being the shift from a geocentric universe
6:40
where everyone absolutely knew the sun revolved around the
6:43
earth to a heliocentric unit because you can't just take the
6:47
new data about the earth moving and comfortably wedge it into
6:50
your old earth centered model. The math literally breaks.
6:53
It doesn't work you. Have to throw the entire old
6:55
model out and start from scratch.
6:57
And that process is deeply disorienting.
7:00
I mean, it forces you to question your own fundamental
7:03
baseline of reality. When you adopt A new theoretical
7:06
paradigm in international relations, the actors change,
7:08
the motives change, the definition of power changes.
7:12
Wow, you are looking at the exact same planet, but the
7:15
mechanics of how it operates have flipped.
7:18
But OK, if these theories are just different filters, a way of
7:22
managing data, I have a major reservation here.
7:24
OK, what is? It looking at how political
7:26
science is often practiced, doesn't picking a single filter
7:30
and rigidly defending it create a massive blind spot?
7:34
Oh, definitely. Because the source is warned
7:36
about something called vertical drift.
7:38
If I decide I'm a strict believer in one theory, won't I
7:42
just cherry pick facts from the individual level, the state
7:45
level, or the global level just to prove my filter is the right
7:48
one while ignoring all the contradictory data?
7:51
Yeah, you've identified the great trap of academia right
7:54
there. Vertical drift is a pervasive
7:56
issue. It happens when an analyst lacks
7:58
a discipline framework and just randomly pulls facts from
8:01
different levels of analysis to justify a pre-existing
8:03
conclusion. However, theorists often
8:06
fiercely defend their single paradigm because switching
8:09
filters mid analysis destroys your logical consistency.
8:12
Well, if you explain the outbreak of a war using the
8:15
logic of, say, power competition, but then you try to
8:19
explain the peace treaty using the logic of innate human
8:22
goodness, your analysis just falls apart.
8:25
Oh, I see. It's internally inconsistent.
8:27
Exactly. A robust theory provides A rigid
8:30
framework to test against reality.
8:32
The best thinkers don't abandoned their filter, they
8:34
simply acknowledge it's blind spots.
8:36
All right, well, I want to start testing these frameworks against
8:39
reality. The literature spends a
8:41
significant amount of time on the two Titans of mainstream IR
8:45
theory. Liberalism and realism.
8:46
Exactly. These are the foundational
8:48
paradigms that practically define the 20th century.
8:51
I want to start with liberalism because honestly, reading its
8:54
core tenets, it feels surprisingly optimistic for a
8:57
discipline focused on geopolitics.
8:59
It is fundamentally optimistic. Liberalism and international
9:02
Relations operates on a very specific premise regarding human
9:06
nature. It argues that humans are either
9:08
innately good or at the very least capable of profound
9:11
rational cooperation. Therefore, a lasting structural
9:14
peace is not just some utopian dream, it is actually an
9:19
achievable mechanical goal. And to understand the mechanics
9:23
of this, the sources point us all the way back to the late
9:26
18th century, to the philosopher Immanuel Kant.
9:29
Yes, Kant is essential here. Kant laid the groundwork for
9:33
what we now refer to as democratic peace theory, and I I
9:37
found the logic here incredibly compelling.
9:39
Kant essentially argued that the internal structure of a state
9:43
dictates its external behavior. If you have a Liberal Democratic
9:47
state, the citizens are the ones holding the power.
9:50
And crucially, the citizens are the ones who bear the physical
9:53
and economic costs of war. They're the ones getting
9:55
drafted. They're the ones paying the
9:57
taxes to fund the military. Exactly so.
10:00
Kant's mechanistic argument is that if the people paying the
10:02
blood price are actually in charge of the government through
10:04
voting, they will rationally choose it's because.
10:08
It hurts them directly. Yes.
10:10
Therefore, if you can foster a world populated entirely by
10:13
liberal democracies, they will inherently avoid going to war
10:17
with each other. It is a profound shift from the
10:19
reality of 18th century Europe. I mean, back then Europe was
10:23
dominated by monarchs who could launch devastating territorial
10:26
wars purely for personal glory. And they were completely
10:30
insulated from the suffering of their subjects.
10:32
Exactly. Liberalism suggests that
10:34
democratization is the ultimate engine for global peace.
10:38
Furthermore, liberals really emphasize economic
10:41
interdependence. Like trade and supply chains?
10:43
Yeah, if two democratic nations have deeply intertwined
10:47
economies, if they rely on each other for energy, technology,
10:50
consumer goods, the financial cost of going to war becomes
10:54
utterly ruinous for both sides. War basically becomes
10:57
economically irrational. We saw this theoretical optimism
11:01
really attempt to manifest physically after the
11:04
catastrophic trauma of First World War.
11:06
Yes, we did. When you look at the devastation
11:08
of trench warfare, the liberal response was, look, we must
11:11
engineer a system where this never happens again.
11:14
And that brings us to U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and the
11:17
creation of the League of Nations.
11:18
The League of Nations was the ultimate normative liberal
11:21
project. Wilson's vision was to replace
11:24
the old secretive alliances of European empires with a
11:28
transparent general association of nations.
11:31
Right. The mechanism there was
11:33
collective security. The idea was that all nations
11:36
would agree to respect each other's territorial integrity.
11:39
Sounds great on paper. Right.
11:41
And if one nation became an aggressor, the entire rest of
11:43
the international community would automatically unite to
11:46
punish them economically or militarily.
11:49
But the architecture of that project failed spectacularly.
11:52
I mean, the League couldn't stop Japan from invading Manchuria.
11:56
It couldn't stop Italy from invading Ethiopia, and it
11:59
completely failed to prevent the rise of Nazi Germany and the
12:02
outbreak of the Second World War.
12:03
Completely failed. When I look at that failure, it
12:06
seems like the liberal assumption of rational
12:08
cooperation just completely collapsed under the weight of
12:11
aggressive nationalism. If human beings are capable of
12:15
engineering the Holocaust, how does liberal theory survive?
12:18
Historically, in that specific moment, it didn't.
12:21
The trauma of the Second World War shattered the dominance of
12:24
liberal optimism in international relations.
12:27
It just couldn't explain what happened.
12:28
No, it couldn't. The failure of the League of
12:30
Nations created a massive intellectual vacuum.
12:34
Policy makers and scholars looked at the wreckage of Europe
12:36
and realized that relying on the innate goodness of humanity or
12:40
the deterrent power of international law was not just
12:43
naive, it was lethally dangerous.
12:47
And filling that vacuum was the reactionary, hard nosed paradigm
12:51
of realism. OK, so if liberalism is that
12:54
warm golden hour filter focusing on shared prosperity, realism is
12:59
the high contrast black and white lens that just strips away
13:02
all illusions. Yes, absolutely.
13:04
It is cynical, it is gritty and it views the international arena
13:07
as a brutal arena of survival. Realism fundamentally rejects
13:10
the liberal premise of human nature.
13:12
Drawing on the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes,
13:15
realists view human beings as inherently self interested,
13:18
fearful, and driven by a desire for power.
13:21
Hobbes described the hypothetical state of nature, a
13:24
world before governments and laws, as war of all against all,
13:29
where life is nasty, brutish and short.
13:32
And the realist leap here is really fascinating.
13:34
They say, look, we solved the Habesian state of nature inside
13:37
our borders by creating a sovereign government right of
13:40
monopoly on violence that enforces the law.
13:43
But outside our borders, the realist argument is that the
13:46
international system is currently stuck in that brutal
13:49
state of nature. This is the defining concept of
13:52
realism, which is international anarchy.
13:55
Now, it's vital to understand that in IR theory, anarchy
13:58
doesn't mean chaos or constant explosions.
14:01
OK, what does it mean? Anarchy has a very specific
14:03
structural definition. It simply means there is no
14:06
overarching global sovereign. There is no world government, no
14:10
ultimate police force. If a hostile nation rolls tanks
14:13
across your border, there is no Global 911 you can call that is
14:16
guaranteed to save you. Because even the UN, as we'll
14:19
discuss later, doesn't have its own standing army.
14:22
It relies entirely on the voluntary contributions of self
14:25
interested states. So if we accept this premise of
14:29
anarchy, the downstream effects are massive.
14:32
Hans Morgenthau, one of the foundational thinkers of 20th
14:35
century realism, argued that because of this anarchic
14:38
environment, all politics is a struggle for power.
14:41
It is a tragic, inescapable logic.
14:44
In an anarchic system, your ultimate goal is simply
14:46
survival, because you can never truly know the hidden intentions
14:51
of your neighboring state. I mean, they might seem friendly
14:54
today, but leadership changes, right?
14:57
The only way to guarantee your survival is to accumulate more
15:00
power than they have. You must build a stronger
15:02
military, secure more resources, form strategic alliances.
15:06
But wait, this creates A terrifying feedback loop.
15:08
Let's look at the mechanics of this.
15:09
Say I am a state and I feel insecure, so I build 10 new
15:13
warships, right? My intention is purely
15:14
defensive. I just want to protect my
15:16
coastline, OK? But my neighbor sees those 10
15:19
warships and thinks, wait, are they planning to attack me?
15:21
Naturally. Hi, so to guarantee their
15:23
survival they build 12 warships. Now I feel incredibly threatened
15:27
so I build 20. Neither of us wanted a war, but
15:29
the structure of anarchy forced us into a massive arms race.
15:32
What you've just described is the security dilemma, and it is
15:35
the beating heart of realist theory.
15:38
It explains how rational security seeking actions by one
15:42
state inherently decrease the security of another, leading to
15:45
spiraling tensions. Like the Cold War?
15:47
Perfectly. It perfectly explains the logic
15:50
of the US Soviet nuclear arms race during the Cold War.
15:54
The tragedy of realism is that states are trapped in this cycle
15:58
regardless of their internal domestic politics.
16:00
OK, I understand the internal logic, but I have to push back
16:03
here. Sure, realism paints a picture
16:05
of a perpetual paranoid cage match.
16:08
It sounds like a geopolitical reality show where everyone is
16:11
just sharpening knives behind their backs.
16:13
A little bit, yeah. But if you look at the empirical
16:15
data of the last 70 years, we haven't had a World War Three.
16:18
We have long, sustained periods of peace, massive global trade
16:23
and really complex diplomatic cooperation.
16:26
How do realists justify their grim worldview when we are
16:29
clearly capable of putting the knives down?
16:32
Well, a realist would smile at that and say you are
16:34
fundamentally misinterpreting the nature of peace.
16:37
For a realist, peace is not an evolution of human morality, nor
16:42
is it the triumph of international law.
16:44
Peace is simply a balance of power.
16:46
A temporary stalemate. Precisely IF2 rival alliances
16:51
are relatively equal in military and economic strength, like NATO
16:54
and the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War, they will not directly
16:58
attack each other because the cost of doing so is mutual
17:00
destruction. The peace you are experiencing
17:03
is merely a pause. It's a period where states are
17:06
consolidating resources and maneuvering for advantage.
17:09
Wow. The moment that balance of power
17:11
shifts, if one side develops A revolutionary new weapon or
17:15
suffers an internal collapse, the systemic restraint vanishes
17:18
and conflict becomes highly probable.
17:20
So liberalism argues we are slowly building a permanent
17:23
architecture of peace, while realism argues we were just
17:26
catching our breath between inevitable wars.
17:29
Pretty much. That is an enormous analytical
17:31
chasm. Surely in the decades since
17:33
these theories were formulated, someone has tried to find a
17:35
middle ground. Yes, definitely.
17:37
The rigid dichotomy between the liberal focus on institutions
17:41
and the realist obsession with raw power left a lot of scholars
17:45
dissatisfied, and this dissatisfaction birthed 2
17:48
incredibly important frameworks, the English school and
17:52
constructivism. Let's unpack the English school
17:54
first, because it introduces a concept that sounds like a total
17:57
oxymoron, the anarchical society popularized by Hadley Bull.
18:02
How can you have a society if you've already conceded to the
18:05
realists that the system is anarchic?
18:08
Bulls intervention is brilliant because he accepts the realist
18:11
premise. Yes, there is no global police
18:13
force, the system is anarchic. However, he rejects the realist
18:17
conclusion that anarchy inevitably results in a brutal
18:20
Habesian war of all against all. Bull observed that states over
18:24
centuries of interaction have formed a distinct International
18:28
Society. Sounds like a gentlemen's club
18:29
without a bouncer. Exactly.
18:30
Even without an enforcer, states generally follow established
18:33
rules. They respect diplomatic
18:35
immunity, they don't generally assassinate each other's
18:37
ambassadors, they negotiate treaties and usually adhere to
18:41
them. They recognize each other's
18:42
borders and sovereignty. Why?
18:45
Not just because they are terrified of retaliation, but
18:48
because it is mutually beneficial to have predictable
18:50
rules of the game. They have formed a shared
18:53
diplomatic culture. So the English school tempers
18:56
the paranoia of realism with the practical, cooperative habits of
19:00
liberalism. It's a very pragmatic middle
19:03
ground. It is.
19:03
But if we want to talk about how those habits are actually
19:05
formed, we have to talk about constructivism.
19:09
And this is where the theory gets profoundly interesting,
19:12
because it moves away from material things like tanks and
19:15
GDP and focuses entirely on the realm of human ideas.
19:19
Constructivism is a true paradigm shift.
19:22
The foundational quote here belongs to Alexander Wendt, who
19:24
famously wrote Anarchy is What States Make of It.
19:27
I thought that quite it's a great one.
19:28
Realists treat anarchy like gravity, an inescapable material
19:32
law of the universe that forces states to compete for power.
19:36
Wendt argues that anarchy is empty.
19:38
It has no inherent logic. Right.
19:40
His argument is that if states are constantly preparing for
19:42
war, it isn't because the system forced them to.
19:45
It's because they constructed the culture of enmity.
19:48
Exactly. Let's dive into the mechanics of
19:50
constructivism. It argues that state identities,
19:54
and therefore state interests, are socially constructed by
19:57
shared ideas, norms and historical interactions.
20:00
Let me give you a really concrete example. the United
20:03
States has a massive nuclear arsenal. the United Kingdom has
20:07
a smaller but highly legal nuclear arsenal.
20:10
North Korea has a relatively tiny nuclear arsenal.
20:14
A strict realist looking only at material power would say the US
20:18
should be terrified of the UK's hundreds of warheads and barely
20:21
concerned about North Korea's handful.
20:23
The reality is the exact opposite.
20:26
The US doesn't lose a second of sleep over British nukes, but
20:29
views North Korean nukes as an existential crisis.
20:32
Why? Because of shared ideas and
20:34
identity. the US and the UK have a shared history, democratic
20:37
norms and a constructed identity.
20:39
As allies, their interaction is based on trust.
20:41
The US and North Korea have a constructed history of enmity.
20:46
Constructivists point out that material power means nothing
20:49
without the social context that gives it meaning.
20:51
And the deeply optimistic, almost revolutionary mechanic of
20:55
constructivism is that if our reality is constructed by shared
20:59
norms, then we are not trapped. Exactly.
21:02
If the rules of the game are just ideas we all agreed upon, a
21:06
critical mass of people could simply change their minds.
21:09
We could construct a new norm. Look at formal imperialism 150
21:14
years ago. Conquering another nation and
21:15
stealing its resources was a globally accepted norm of
21:19
statecraft. It was standard practice.
21:20
Today it is a profound violation of international norms.
21:24
The material world didn't change.
21:26
Our ideas did. That is the power of
21:28
constructivism. But, you know, it also opens a
21:30
critical doorway. If reality is constructed by the
21:33
dominant norms and ideas, we have to ask whose ideas, right?
21:36
Who got to write the rules of this International Society?
21:39
Yeah. And who was excluded from the
21:40
room when those identities were being constructed?
21:42
Which brings us perfectly into the realm of critical and
21:45
alternative theories. Yeah, because if they look at
21:47
mainstream IR realism, liberalism, even constructivism
21:51
to an extent, it was largely built by white western male
21:55
scholars analyzing the actions of powerful industrialized
21:59
western states. Critical theories argue that
22:02
this incredibly narrow lens actively hides massive
22:05
structures of oppression. Critical theories share a
22:08
unifying mission. They do not just want to explain
22:10
the world as it is. They want to expose the hidden
22:13
power dynamics of the system to emancipate the people crushed by
22:16
it. They challenge the foundational
22:18
assumptions we've been taking for granted.
22:20
Let's begin with Marxism. Now, when most people hear
22:22
Marxism, they immediately think of domestic politics.
22:25
You know, unions, taxation, the Bolshevik revolution.
22:28
But applying A Marxist lens to international relations entirely
22:31
redraws the map. Mainstream theories are obsessed
22:34
with the state as the primary actor.
22:37
Marxism looks at the geopolitical map, takes an
22:39
eraser to all the national borders, and redraws the world
22:42
strictly along class lines. Yes, for a Marxist, the
22:46
fundamental dividing line of humanity is not between the
22:48
French and the Germans, or the Americans and the Chinese.
22:52
The dividing line is between the bourgeoisie, the owners of
22:55
capital, and the means of production, and the proletariat,
22:58
the working class, who must sell their labor to survive.
23:01
So when a realist looks at the expansion of an empire, they see
23:05
a state maximizing its security. How does a Marxist
23:09
mechanistically explain imperialism?
23:12
Well, a Marxist views imperialism and the entire
23:14
international state system as a mechanism for capital
23:17
accumulation. As industrialized economies
23:20
produce more goods than their domestic populations can
23:22
consume, and as the rate of profit begins to fall at home,
23:25
the capitalist class must expand outward.
23:28
They use the machinery of the state, the military, to forcibly
23:31
open new markets, extract cheap raw materials from the
23:33
developing world and exploit foreign labor.
23:36
So a Marxist would argue that a war between two nations isn't a
23:40
tragic security dilemma. It is an engineered conflict
23:43
where the wealthy elite in country A send the working poor
23:47
of country A to slaughter the working poor of country B just
23:51
to secure control over an oil field or a vital shipping lane,
23:55
which just ends up enriching the elites of both nations.
23:58
Exactly. The state is just a shell
24:00
company for the bourgeoisie. That's a great way to put it.
24:03
And this leads into dependency theory, which is a crucial
24:06
branch of Marxist IR. It argues that the global
24:08
economy is structurally rigged. How so?
24:11
You have the core wealthy industrialized nations and the
24:14
periphery developing nations. The core extracts cheap raw
24:18
materials from the periphery, manufacturers them into high
24:20
value technology and sells them back to the periphery.
24:24
The periphery is structurally trapped in a cycle of debt and
24:27
under development, constantly feeding the wealth of the core.
24:30
Which flows seamlessly into our next critical framework, post
24:33
colonialism. If Marxism focuses on class,
24:36
post colonialism zeroes in on the lingering structural legacy
24:40
of empire in race. It forces us to confront the
24:43
reality that the international system wasn't formed by a bunch
24:47
of equal states politely signing treaties.
24:50
It was forged through brutal global colonization.
24:54
The sources highlight the profound impact of Edward Said's
24:58
concept of Orientalism. Here, Said demonstrated how
25:01
Western scholars, writers, and politicians systematically
25:05
constructed a false, generalized narrative about the Middle East
25:08
and Asia. The Orient was depicted as
25:11
exotic, backward, irrational, and inherently dangerous.
25:15
Well, the West constructed its own identity as rational,
25:18
progressive and civilized. Exactly.
25:21
And this wasn't just bad literature, it was a mechanism
25:23
of power. By establishing themselves as
25:26
the rational adult in the room, Western empires legitimize their
25:29
domination over the supposedly irrational, childlike East.
25:33
Post Colonialism points out that this dynamic didn't just
25:36
evaporate when colonies gain formal independence.
25:38
Right. I mean, look at how national
25:40
borders were drawn in the Middle East and Africa.
25:42
Lines were drawn on maps by British and French diplomats in
25:44
drawing rooms, completely ignoring complex ethnic,
25:47
linguistic and historical realities on the ground.
25:50
Oh, absolutely. A post colonialist points out
25:52
that when we analyze a modern civil war in one of these
25:55
regions, a realist might just see a failed state.
25:58
But a post colonialist forces you to see the direct
26:01
mechanistic result of artificial colonial borders designed to
26:06
divide and rule. It demands that the voices of
26:08
the global S are centered in our analysis, rather than being
26:12
treated merely as the battlegrounds for great power
26:15
competition. And if we are talking about
26:17
marginalized voices, we absolutely must engage with
26:20
feminist IR theory. Feminist theorists in the 1980s
26:23
like Cynthia Enlow started asking a deceptively simple
26:27
question that shattered the discipline, which was where are
26:29
the women? When you look at the summits,
26:31
the defense ministries and the UN Security Council, the actors
26:34
making the decisions that shape the globe are overwhelmingly
26:37
men. But the feminist critique goes
26:39
far beyond just demanding a quota of women in the boardroom.
26:43
It attacks the very conceptual foundation of IR.
26:46
The sources bring up V Spike Peterson's concept of gender
26:49
invisibility. Feminist theory argues that the
26:52
core concepts of international relations, rationality, power,
26:55
and especially security are fundamentally defined by
26:58
masculine traits. Let's dissect the concept of
27:01
security as an example. When a realist talks about
27:04
national security, they're talking mechanistically about
27:07
protecting the borders of the state from foreign military
27:09
invasion. They measure security and
27:11
fighter jets and missile defense systems.
27:13
But feminist scholars argue this is a profoundly narrow,
27:17
masculine definition of security.
27:19
If a state has impenetrable borders and a massive army, the
27:22
realist says the state is secure, right?
27:25
But what if, within those borders, domestic violence rates
27:28
are skyrocketing, women lack basic economic autonomy, and
27:32
maternal mortality is soaring? From a human security
27:36
perspective, half the population is intensely insecure.
27:39
Feminism reveals that the state itself is not a neutral
27:42
protector. It often enforces patriarchal
27:44
structures that disproportionately harm women.
27:47
Furthermore, in times of war, mainstream analysis focuses on
27:50
the battlefield. Troop movements and casualties.
27:53
Exactly. But feminist analysis brings
27:56
visibility to the hidden economy of war, the exploitation of
28:00
female labor to sustain the war effort, the use of sexual
28:03
violence as a systematic weapon of ethnic cleansing, and the
28:07
burden placed on women as refugees keeping families alive.
28:10
By making gender visible, you realize the entire architecture
28:14
of global politics is skewed. OK, we have one final critical
28:18
theory to explore, and I will admit this is the one that bends
28:21
my brain the most. Post Structuralism.
28:23
Post Structuralism, this framework takes aim at the very
28:27
language we use to construct reality.
28:30
They utilize the philosopher Jacques Derrida's concept of
28:32
deconstruction. Yeah, Post structuralism argues
28:35
that there is no objective truth outside of discourse.
28:38
The language we use doesn't just describe reality, it creates it.
28:41
OK. That's heavy.
28:42
They look at binary oppositions, good versus evil, developed
28:45
versus underdeveloped, civilized versus barbaric, and show how
28:48
these linguistic pairings are always hierarchical, one term is
28:51
always dominant, and the powerful use this language to
28:54
legitimize their actions. Let me try to break this down
28:56
mechanically with a concrete example.
28:58
Let's look at military language. When a Western military drops a
29:02
bomb that accidentally kills a family in a war zone, the
29:06
military press briefing refers to it as collateral damage.
29:09
A textbook example of discourse. When you deconstruct that
29:12
phrase, collateral damage sounds clinical, mathematical,
29:15
unavoidable, sounds like an accounting error.
29:18
But if an insurgent group detonates a bomb that kills a
29:21
family, the press calls it a barbaric slaughter of innocent
29:25
civilians. The physical reality on the
29:27
ground is identical. A family is dead, but the
29:30
discourse completely shifts the moral responsibility.
29:34
The language of collateral damage sanitizes state violence
29:37
and maintains the state's legitimacy, while the language
29:39
of barbarism delegitimizes the non state actor.
29:42
That is exactly how deconstruction works.
29:44
It exposes how language is weaponized.
29:47
OK, but here's my major pushback.
29:49
I completely understand the intellectual exercise of
29:51
deconstructing a press briefing, but how does this accomplish
29:55
anything practical in the brutal reality of global politics?
29:58
It's a fair question. If a hostile nation has amassed
30:01
100,000 troops on your border and their tanks are rolling
30:05
forward, deconstructing the linguistic origins of the word
30:08
sovereignty isn't going to stop the tank treads.
30:12
Isn't this just academic word play while Rome burns?
30:16
It is the most common and potent critique of post structuralism.
30:19
It can feel deeply detached from material urgency, but the
30:23
counter argument is that you cannot fight a system of power
30:27
until you understand how it justifies itself.
30:29
What? Do you mean?
30:30
Dictators don't just roll tanks. They construct elaborate
30:33
historical and linguistic narratives to justify why those
30:37
tanks belong there, claiming historical sovereignty or
30:40
framing the invasion as a peacekeeping operation to
30:43
protect ethnic minorities. Right, controlling the
30:45
narrative. If you can dismantle the
30:47
language they use to justify the violence, you strip away their
30:51
domestic and international legitimacy.
30:53
You make it vastly easier for the international community to
30:56
unite against them with sanctions and support for the
30:58
victim. You don't stop the tank with a
31:00
dictionary, but you shatter the narrative that allows the tank
31:03
to operate unopposed. That makes a lot of sense.
31:06
It is about breaking the spell of propaganda.
31:09
OK, we have laid out an incredible array of lenses
31:12
today. Liberalism, realism, the English
31:14
school, constructivism, Marxism, post colonialism, feminism and
31:19
post structuralism. It's a full toolbox.
31:21
Now I want to take these abstract concepts and anchor
31:23
them to physical brick and mortar.
31:25
Let's apply these theories to the most prominent institution
31:28
in global politics, the United Nations, specifically the UN
31:33
Security Council. The UN Security Council is the
31:35
ultimate Crucible for IR theory to set the baseline.
31:38
The council has 15 members, but the true geopolitical gravity
31:42
lies with the five permanent members, the US, Russia, China,
31:45
France and the UK, right? And crucially, each of these
31:48
five holds an absolute veto power over any substantive
31:52
resolution. Which essentially freezes the
31:54
power dynamics of 1945 in amber. Let's walk into the UN building
31:57
and look through our different theoretical windows.
31:59
If I put on my liberal glasses, how do I interpret this
32:02
institution? A liberal looks at the UN and
32:05
sees the greatest triumph of institutionalized diplomacy in
32:08
human history. They don't pretend it's perfect,
32:11
but they see a vital forum where states can resolve disputes
32:14
through dialogue rather than artillery.
32:17
The very existence of the UN creates a habit of cooperation.
32:21
It establishes international law, and it coordinates massive
32:25
logistical efforts for human rights and global health.
32:27
OK, I take the liberal glasses off and snap on my realist
32:31
lenses. The warm glow of cooperation
32:33
vanishes. How does a realist explain the
32:36
UN Security Council? A realist looks at the UN and
32:39
sees a theater where hard power goes to put on a suit.
32:43
They argue that the UN only functions when its actions align
32:45
perfectly with the national interests of the great powers.
32:48
So the veto is central for them. Absolutely.
32:51
To a realist, the veto power isn't a flaw in the system, it
32:54
is the only reason the great powers agreed to show up in the
32:56
1st place. The veto guarantees they can
32:58
never be restrained by the majority.
33:00
And the defining historical proof of this is the 2003 US
33:04
invasion of Iraq. the US went to the Security Council, asked for
33:08
authorization to invade, and failed to get it.
33:11
And what did the US do? It simply bypassed the UN and
33:14
invaded anyway, along with a coalition of the willing.
33:16
Exactly. The realist points to that and
33:18
says, see, when push comes to shove, material military power
33:23
completely ignores international institutions.
33:25
But if we swap to constructivist glasses and look at that exact
33:29
same 2003 invasion, the analysis shifts entirely.
33:32
How so? A constructivist agrees the US
33:34
bypassed the UN, but they focus on the cost of doing so because
33:38
the UN holds immense normative power.
33:40
The idea that the UN confers international legitimacy
33:43
bypassing it severely damaged American soft power.
33:46
Oh interesting. Alienator allies fueled global
33:48
anti American sentiment and made the subsequent occupation vastly
33:52
more difficult. The US proved it had the hard
33:54
power to ignore the UN, but the Constructivist points out a
33:56
massive reputational damage of violating a global norm.
34:00
That is a brilliant distinction. Let's keep moving.
34:02
If I put on my Marxist glasses, I look at the UN and see a
34:05
Capitalist Management Committee. It's a forum for the core
34:09
wealthy states to manage the global economy, regulate trade
34:13
to their advantage, and occasionally dispense
34:15
humanitarian aid to the periphery just to prevent a
34:19
total proletarian revolution that would disrupt global supply
34:23
chains. Spot on.
34:24
And if you view it through a feminist lens, you look at the
34:27
history of the Security Council, the body authorized to dictate
34:30
global security, and see an institution that has been almost
34:33
exclusively run by men, right? You analyze UN peacekeeping and
34:38
question why traditional mandates focus purely on
34:41
separating armies while entirely ignoring the epidemic of sexual
34:45
violence against women in those conflict zones, treating it as a
34:48
secondary domestic issue rather than a core security threat.
34:51
And finally, a post colonialist walks into the Security Council
34:54
chamber, looks at the five permanent veto wielding members
34:58
and points out a staggering geographical and racial reality.
35:03
There is no permanent representation for the entire
35:05
continent of Africa, nor for Latin America, nor for India,
35:09
which represents over a billion people.
35:12
It's. Glaring.
35:13
A post colonialist sees an archaic structure designed to
35:16
perpetuate the global hegemony of the former colonial powers,
35:20
keeping the global South in a state of permanent political
35:24
subordination. It is genuinely remarkable.
35:27
By simply changing your theoretical lens, the United
35:30
Nations transfers from a beacon of hope to a cynical tool of
35:34
power to a theater of norms, to a mechanism of gendered and
35:37
colonial oppression. None of these lenses are lying.
35:40
They're just illuminating different structural realities.
35:43
This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt why you cannot rely on
35:46
just one theory. And to bring this home, I want
35:49
to move out of the classroom and into the war.
35:50
Room. OK, let's do.
35:51
It we'll put this to a practical test, let's do a thought
35:53
experiment. Imagine you are sitting in
35:55
Christiansburg Palace advising the Danish Prime Minister.
35:59
A crisis has just broken out. A highly radicalized
36:02
transnational terrorist group has seized significant territory
36:06
in a fragile state in North Africa, relatively close to the
36:09
borders of the European Union. OK, serious situation.
36:12
This is triggering a massive wave of displaced persons moving
36:15
toward the Mediterranean, and there is intelligence suggesting
36:18
the group plans to strike European targets.
36:22
Walk me through how you brief the Prime Minister on this exact
36:24
same scenario, first using a realist lens and then a
36:27
constructivist lens. It is a highly complex, very
36:31
realistic scenario. Let's start with the realist
36:33
briefing. I walk into the Prime Minister's
36:35
office and my sole focus is the material security of the Danish
36:38
state and the stability of the European balance of power.
36:42
I define the terrorist group strictly as a kinetic physical
36:45
threat to our borders. So purely a military problem.
36:48
Yes, my briefing explains that the fragile North African state
36:52
has lost its monopoly on violence, creating a power
36:55
vacuum that threatens regional stability.
36:57
My recommendation is entirely reliant on hard power.
37:00
I advise the Prime Minister to aggressively fund and arm the
37:04
remnants of the host nation's military to crush the
37:07
insurgency. Or direct intervention.
37:08
Exactly. Alternatively, I advocate for a
37:11
coordinated NATO military intervention, airstrikes, and
37:15
special forces to decapitate the group's leadership and destroy
37:18
their training camps. Regarding the migrants, I view
37:21
them primarily through a security paradigm.
37:24
They are a potential vector for instability that must be
37:26
contained through hardened border enforcement and naval
37:29
blockades. The.
37:30
Classic muscular hardline response.
37:32
Eliminate the physical capability of the threat.
37:34
OK, step out of the room, take a breath and walk back in.
37:37
As a constructivist, the intelligence on the desk is the
37:39
exact same. How does your briefing change?
37:42
The briefing changes radically because my definition of the
37:45
threat has changed. I tell the Prime Minister that
37:47
dropping bombs might destroy physical infrastructure, but it
37:51
will absolutely fail to destroy the idea that fuels this
37:54
insurgency. Because it's an ideology.
37:56
Right. In fact, if a coalition of
37:58
Western militaries begins bombing North Africa, we are
38:01
playing directly into the terrorist group's narrative.
38:04
We are validating their constructed identity of the West
38:07
as a hostile imperialist crusader, which will serve as
38:11
their greatest recruitment tool. Wow, so bombing actually makes
38:14
us less secure in this view? Exactly.
38:17
My recommendation focuses on norms and ideology.
38:20
I advise that we must counter the narrative.
38:22
We need to invest heavily in diplomatic engagement, counter
38:25
radicalization programs, and economic support for local civil
38:29
society organizations that provide an alternative peaceful
38:32
identity for disenfranchised youth.
38:34
And what about the migration crisis?
38:36
Well, I emphasize that how Denmark and the EU treat these
38:39
refugees will define our normative identity on the global
38:43
stage. If we militarize the border and
38:45
abandoned them, we erode the very liberal human rights norms
38:49
that the EU claims as its foundational identity,
38:52
fundamentally weakening our soft power globally.
38:55
Wow, 2 completely divergent strategies, both deeply logical
38:59
within their own paradigms. Let's do one more walk in as a
39:02
post colonialist. As a post colonialist, I tell
39:04
the Prime Minister that we cannot manage this crisis
39:07
without understanding how Europe's past created it.
39:10
I explained that this terrorist group did not materialize out of
39:12
thin air. They are capitalizing on deep
39:15
systemic resentments fueled by decades of economic exploitation
39:19
and artificial borders drawn by European empires.
39:22
So the historical context is everything.
39:24
Everything. My recommendation is that any
39:26
direct western military intervention will immediately be
39:29
viewed correctly by many locals as an act of neo imperialism.
39:33
I advise that the solution must be locally driven, not dictated
39:36
by Christians, Board or Brussels.
39:38
We must examine our own structural complicity.
39:41
Like trade policies? Yeah, our European trade
39:43
policies and agricultural subsidies destroying the local
39:46
economy in that region, driving youth into radicalism.
39:50
And on the issue of migration, I shift the moral framework
39:53
entirely. I remind the Prime Minister that
39:56
the vast wealth of Europe was built in part on the historical
39:59
extraction of resources from the very regions these people are
40:03
now fleeing. Which completely flips the
40:05
script on Asylum. It does.
40:07
Therefore, offering asylum is not an act of optional charity,
40:11
it is a structural moral obligation grounded in
40:14
historical debt. You've just laid out three
40:16
completely contradictory paths of action.
40:19
One says bomb them, one says diffuse the narrative, and one
40:22
says look at our own historical complicity.
40:24
If I am the Prime Minister, how do I know which lens is the
40:27
correct one to base a multibillion dollar life and
40:30
death policy on? That is the ultimate secret of
40:32
the discipline. No single theory is the correct
40:35
one. To believe that one paradigm
40:37
holds the absolute truth is to deliberately blind yourself.
40:40
You need them all. The most effective visionary
40:43
policy makers are those who can synthesize multiple theories to
40:46
expose their own blind spots. You use realism to understand
40:50
and neutralize the immediate physical threat.
40:53
You use constructivism to fight the ideological battle and
40:56
maintain your soft power. And you use post colonialism to
41:00
understand the deep historical context, ensuring you don't
41:03
repeat the arrogant mistakes of the past that fueled the
41:05
resentment in the first place. A robust foreign policy requires
41:09
the integration of all these perspectives.
41:11
That is incredibly illuminating. It clearly demonstrates that
41:14
theory isn't just academic navel gazing for professors, it is the
41:18
literal framework that dictates the life and death policy
41:21
decisions shaping our world. Absolutely, and pulling all of
41:24
this dense material together leads us directly into our key
41:27
takeaways for this deep dive. Let's synthesize this journey
41:30
into 3 clear, actionable insights for you to take with
41:33
you #1 Theory is completely unavoidable.
41:37
Whether you realize it or not, you are already using Siri.
41:40
When you watch the Evening News and form an opinion about why a
41:44
trade war started or why a ceasefire failed, you are
41:47
implicitly applying a theoretical framework.
41:51
The goal of studying IR is simply to become conscious of
41:55
the filter you are using so it doesn't control you blindly.
41:58
Exactly which brings us to #2 highlighting different aspects.
42:02
Each theory we discussed, from realism's cold focus on the
42:06
mechanics of power and survival to feminism's vital exposure of
42:10
marginalized voices and invisible gender structures,
42:13
illuminates a fundamentally different aspect of world
42:15
politics. None of them show the whole
42:17
picture, but layered together they provide a three-dimensional
42:20
map of the international. And #3 conscious application.
42:25
You can actively use these theories in your daily life,
42:28
whether you are studying for a political science degree,
42:30
teaching a high school class, or just listening to your Morning
42:33
News briefing. Try a mental exercise.
42:35
Swap your glasses. Just ask yourself, how would a
42:38
Marxist read this headline about the supply chain?
42:40
Exactly. Or what would a constructivist
42:43
say about this new climate treaty?
42:46
It is the single best intellectual habit to avoid
42:49
being trapped in a narrow echo chamber perspective.
42:53
And if you want to keep practicing that conscious
42:55
application and see how these grand theories apply directly to
42:58
the regional dynamics of Northern Europe, we highly
43:01
encourage you to join us on Patreon.
43:02
The link is right there in the description.
43:05
Your subscription is what allows us to keep producing these deep
43:07
dives, and you'll gain access to our exclusive weekly and monthly
43:11
briefings focused specifically on Danish politics.
43:14
It's a fantastic way to watch these theories operate in real
43:17
time within a specific geopolitical context.
43:20
We have a great community building there and we'd love to
43:23
have you be a part of it. Now, as we wrap up our time
43:25
together, we always like to leave you with a final
43:28
provocative thought to Mull over.
43:29
Let's loop back to Thomas Kuhn and the concept of the paradigm
43:32
shift. Kuhn noted that human beings
43:35
once firmly, absolutely accepted the Flat Earth and the
43:38
geocentric universe as unquestionable scientific facts.
43:42
The smartest minds of the era built institutions around those
43:45
beliefs. They thought they had it all
43:47
figured out. Exactly.
43:48
Today we accept the existence of the sovereign nation state, the
43:52
concept of national security, and the rigid international
43:55
borders that divide our map as absolute, unquestionable facts
43:59
of reality. But the theories we explore
44:02
today remind us that these are just concepts we have socially
44:05
agreed upon. Right?
44:06
So the thought I leave you with is this If our reality is
44:10
constructed by the ideas we accept, what current absolute
44:13
truths about our international system might future generations
44:17
look back on as archaic, outdated, Flat Earth illusions?
44:21
What a phenomenal question to end on.
44:24
Think about that the next time you look at a globe.
44:26
It might just be a temporary draft of human organization.
44:29
Thank you so much for joining us on this deep dive.
44:31
If you enjoyed the conversation and found these concepts
44:33
helpful, please hit follow and rate the show 5 stars wherever
44:36
you are listening. It truly is the number one way
44:38
to help the show reach more curious minds.
44:40
We read every review and we appreciate your support
44:43
immensely. And you definitely won't want to
44:46
miss our next deep dive. In the summer series, we are
44:49
going to take everything we've just learned about theory and
44:51
apply it to an incredibly complex and fascinating realm,
44:55
international law. Is it possible to have binding
44:58
laws without a global police force to arrest the rule
45:01
Breakers? We are going to find out.
45:03
Until then, remember that the X-ray machine of global politics
45:06
might be broken. But if you know how to swap your
45:08
lenses, the Muddy Waters of international relations start to
45:11
make a whole lot of sense. See you next time.