Metaphors in International Relations
On Monday evening, I heard NRF speak about international relations among Iraq, Iran, Israel, and the U.S. He, like most scholars, talks about nations as if they have a coherent, unified set of interests ("Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons."). In other words, he personifies nations. See Lakoff & Johnson's book with a catchy yet solecistic title, Metaphors We Live By; see also Lakoff's more recent and less scholarly Don't Think of An Elephant!
Clearly this move simplifies discussion, but what do we lose in exchange for this simplification? Is personification the best way to talk about international relations? What are the alternatives?
On a related note, I recently finished Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind. He points out that economists have trouble analyzing the field of international relations because that field lacks the (assumed) exogenous political and institutional structure through which economists are accustomed to analyzing situations. In other words, in the market, players resolve conflicts through the price mechanism. But in international relations, players are in a quasi state of nature and hence have many more conflict-resolution mechanisms. Is Bloom right?
Thoughts?
Clearly this move simplifies discussion, but what do we lose in exchange for this simplification? Is personification the best way to talk about international relations? What are the alternatives?
On a related note, I recently finished Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind. He points out that economists have trouble analyzing the field of international relations because that field lacks the (assumed) exogenous political and institutional structure through which economists are accustomed to analyzing situations. In other words, in the market, players resolve conflicts through the price mechanism. But in international relations, players are in a quasi state of nature and hence have many more conflict-resolution mechanisms. Is Bloom right?
Thoughts?
posted by Garrett at 3:19 PM
1 Comments:
I would like to extend the metaphors further. Whether or not it can illuminate the subject, I'm not sure.
As you may be aware, there is an alternate formulation of mechanics aside from Newton's vector/force based approach. The Lagrangian formulation deals with scalar energy functions instead of forces. This can simplify problems to an almost embarrassingly easy level.
However, with the Lagrangian formulation, we lose insight into the problem at hand. An example: If we solve the problem of two masses attached by a string on opposite sides of a pulley, the Newtonian approach tells us there is a tension involved. The Langragian approach, while yielding the same equations of motion as the Newtonian, remains blissfully unaware of such a nuance.
Does the current "Lagrangian" method of international relations research omit too many important details? If it does, we have to go back and solve uglier problems.
Post a Comment
<< Home