Emotions in International Relations
The “emotional” turn (including specific emotions like anger or sorrow, conditions like affect or trust, and related processes like memory) in International Relations (IR) seems to have arrived. Since the twenty-first century began, books and journal articles studying the role and effects of emotional states in foreign policymaking and international interactions have been coming out regularly. The study of Emotions in IR had just suddenly taken occurrence at this moment especially with emotional states.
According to Brent Sasley, there is a more efficient way of understanding emotion in international relations. The first is to think about the state as a “person” acting unitarily. This approach does not consider the various politics and other forces that shape interactions between decision-makers or between leaders and the public. Just like how the US was humiliated in 9/11 and the Israel being angry at Palestinian effort to be recognized as a state, or “China” remembering how it suffered during the era of gunboat diplomacy.
The second approach is to study the individual leaders of a state or collective. the researcher need only consider the specific individual or individuals in power at a given moment. In this case Trump, Duterte, Xi Jingping, and many more.
Third, is to think of states or other collectivities as groups. In this way, emotions, which certainly are manifested in individuals’ biological and mental reactions, can be considered to operate at the group level. Just like how we see the rising of populism these days.
Emotions have been part of IR for a really long time, even early writers on what we would today call international relations—like Aristotle, Thucydides, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Niebuhr, Morgenthau, and others—incorporated emotions into their analyses, arguing that they helped drive human, and therefore international, behavior. And the main theoretical approaches to IR have all built in some way on emotional states: realists emphasize fear, institutionalists trust, Marxists greed, constructivists affect.
Even looking back at our history of war and conflicts, we can see how emotions are manifested in terms of non-verbal communication which involves more action. Just like in Cold War when the US and Soviet Union instilled fear to one another because one side was threatened that their opponent would proliferate an enormous amount of nuclear weapons, which would make either one of them a potential global Hegemon, we also have the Trojan War, when Prince Paris of Troy abducted Helen of Sparta which angered her husband Menelaus thus, declaring war towards the entire Trojan Kingdom, or how the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand angered the government of Austria-Hungary towards the government of Serbia for not taking initiative in security measures, which in the end served as a catalyst in the First World War.
Now aside from looking at it from non-verbal communication we also look at the history of conflicts in terms of verbal communication of the use of words. Like in our very own context, we see how Jose Rizal sparked a revolution within the Filipinos to battle against the Spaniards with his two novels “El Filibusterismo” and “Noli Me Tangere”. Moreover, the war between the Kingdom of Prussia and Empire of France in 1870 was important to take note especially when Otto Von Bismarck himself altered the words in the dispatch which in turn led to a misunderstanding and impression to France that the King of Prussia was insulting them by refusing not to see their ambassador anymore. France retorted to this by foolishly declaring war towards Prussia.
Even in this present moment, we see how the use of words can still instigate trouble more likely a possible war. In this case, the war of words between Trump and Kim Jong Un which has garnered much attention from many state leaders and many social media outlets. Here you would see the US President emotionally venting out his anger and frustrations not only to North Korea but also to China as well. With provocative insults being brought from here to there it eventually led to a series of serious threats from both countries in engaging in a full out nuclear war.
Now if you see the emotions behind these past conflicts you would notice that anger is the commonality. Anger despite it being an under-researched topic in IR, it is something that should be considered eye-catching to many IR scholars and students.
Going back to the war of words, according to Deepak Chopra, in an article he wrote mentioned whether or not words cause war in which he replied stating that they don’t, not directly but they do reflect the consciousness of the leader thus being a potent cause for conflict.
So my friends you see how emotions influence the actions and decisions of state leaders and sometimes they just don’t bring the best results and with that I had an idea if states weren’t so emotional then maybe none of these conflicts would have existed. Despite my ambiguous statement, I’m not trying to say that emotions are the main reason why wars and conflicts exist but rather they take a part of it. Even Brent Sasley says himself, emotions can’t explain everything but thinking about emotions in international interactions can provide insight into all kinds of international behavior and how state leaders go about with foreign policy.
So with that ladies and gentlemen, I end my speech saying let’s be rational not emotional, be careful of things you do and more importantly the words you say because you never know the dire consequences that may come later on. Thank you!
Sources:
Chopra, D. (2010, August 27). Do Words Cause War? Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.com: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/do-words-cause-wars_b_697645.html
Sasley, B. (2013, June 12). Emotions in International Relations. Retrieved from www.e-ir.info: http://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/12/emotions-in-international-relations/