Week 1- Introduction:  What is Political Science? What is the study of International Relations?

"This being a world of competing moral principles and conflict among them, absolute good can never be attained. Moral principles can never be fully realized. But at best, must be approximated through the ever temporary balancing of conflicts and the ever precarious settlement of disputes…(thus)…politics is always the choice of the lesser of evils."

Hans Morgenthau , the person who said that, was the father of the School of Realism, one of the many schools of thought in political science.  

He's right, politicians don't want to help people. They want power. They might want power so that they can help people, but how are we to know the minds of others? 

My discipline, political science, is a unique way of looking at the world. It is a specialized lens through which to view all human behavior and it has a great deal to tell us about ourselves and others. 

We don't just study governments. We study all group interaction. We study a simple concept: Power. Political Science seeks to describe explain and predict human behavior in terms of power. Where there are two or more humans there is a power relationship. You have power, I have power, we all do. But is it the same? Do we all use our power in a similar fashion? 

Political Science - one of many Social Sciences.

First, understand that political science is one of the many social sciences. The social sciences have only been developed in the last century or so. And in the last fifty years, the advance in computers has allowed most social science to take place. Computers allow the analysis of huge amounts of data, allowing social scientists to do their job: scientifically describe, explain and predict human behavior. 

Political science is a wannabe science like all the other social sciences. Where physics and chemistry get to do lab experiments, we social scientists can only observe institutions and governments as they do experiments (policies). But we follow the basic scientific method . You know the SCIENTIFIC METHOD don't you? If not visit this web site … and then go find your high school science teachers and yell at them. You got ripped off. 

Political Science - a wannabe science.

So we use the scientific method to observe human behavior. We describe it, seek to explain it, and see if we can make predictions. Political science isn't as good at prediction as the so-called "hard sciences." Any one who tells you they saw the end of the cold war coming in 1985, they are just plan lying - no one did. But we still want to be able to predict human behavior. It's just that atoms, molecules, cells and weather fronts all are far more predictable than humans. 

Political science studies group human behavior, not really individuals. We need data, numbers, verifiable reality is what we call it. Verifiable reality means something that we can see, hear touch, smell and reduce to some quantity or number. That you went to Disneyland can be verified and quantified (how many times, when etc.) but that you had fun - that can't be measured. Fun isn't a verifiable reality - it's outside our scientific ability to describe reality - it can't be mapped, or charted or any of that. (Unless you try real hard to have fun but then one person's fun may not be for someone else, so…) 

Intentions don't matter. "Oh I didn't mean to kill him" but he's dead and that's the verifiable reality, not intentions. We study actions (means) and ends.  Intentions can't be scientifically arrived at, nor can they be quantified (reduced to numbers).  We have to have data - numbers - verifiable reality - in order to do political science.

I am a member of two professional organizations: The American Political Science Association and International Studies Association.

Political Science is NOT like any other class.

This is not a psychology class and your feelings are irrelevant . That means your emotions are irrelevant (at best) and dangerous to your analysis (at worst). Does a biologist become emotionally attached to the frog she is dissecting? No. Leave your emotions aside and describe and explain what is, not what you wish or what you feel. Deal in verifiable reality, not your dreams, nor moral constructs, nor emotional baggage, but only that which is. 

This is not an economics class. Economics is the least credible of the social sciences. Economists pretend their charts and graphs are connected to this thing they call a market. It's interesting fiction. 

This is NOT a history class, although we will talk about some history and we can learn from it, remember, history is something that never happened written by some one who wasn't there. Historians love to deal in moral questions. Social science is not equipped to deal in moral issues. If you want answers to moral questions, take a philosophy class, a history class, pray, or do whatever works for you, but social science has no answers because we do not ask those questions. We don't make moral judgments. We try to leave our prejudices at the door, or at least admit them to ourselves as a way of controlling for their impact on our study. 

"The perception of the facts is more important than the facts, moreover, the perception of the facts usually becomes the facts."

It's an old saying and no one is ever given credit for this quote, because like a good axiom, it's self defining. 

Political Science doesn't seek "the truth." The truth is unascertainable, indefinable and rests in the hearts and minds of each individual. Is there is only one truth or is truth in the eye of the beholder? This is a world of competing world views and absolute truth is beside the point. People live their lives by what they know and believe to be true, not by what is true. 

Questions about "truth" and all those noble concepts are best left to philosophy. Political science is a social science and we have a much simpler mission - describe explain and predict human group behavior in terms of power. This is not a philosophy class. 

Verifiable Reality - Everyone has biases.

Because we exist, we all have biases.  But political science deals in "verifiable reality" (That which is, described in terms of data), not broad sweeping insupportable statements. That's how we can talk about race, poverty or other issues and not be accused of being racists or whatever.

Quantifiable Reality - Measurable Reality.

In Social Science inquiry, we have to use variables that can be measured, or reduced to a numerical quantity.  So concepts like love, passion, trust and a thousand others are difficult for us to use in our analysis.  that is the focus of social science inquiry - that we separate the emotion and look at the reality of any situation.

People often say that statistics can be used to prove anything or that statistics lie. Statistics don't lie - people do. People lie. All people lie. Throughout their life - people lie. Don't blame the liar for lying, blame yourself for believing a liar. 

Maybe not an axiom, but a great piece of advice: "Define your terms." This means YOU must define what is important to you. In writing papers, you can't just throw out some word without defining it. And don't use the dictionary - you can start there but grow up! All worth-while and interesting adult discourse deals with defining terms that matter. 

Structure and Function.

This brings up a great concept that you should use in your "real life." The Structure of something refers to the rules of it's operation, how things are supposed to work (The Constitution, laws etc.). The Function refers to how things actually work. Political science reminds us to always look beyond the structure to the function. 

The All-Important Effect of Culture.

Our government was set up a long time ago, but it was and is a product of our culture. Culture sets the limits for political action. No politician can act outside of his or her culture and remain in power. You and I are equally stuck in our culture because it is such a huge part of what we are. Even if you go somewhere else, the culture you were raised in follows you, it is part of you. 

Culture is everywhere. Culture is always an important variable to remember.  No one can really act outside her or his culture.  Especially not politicians. 

That's the challenge of studying international relations and other cultures and systems!

International Relations looks at the world arena.

The idea you and I have of civilized world with laws and police and all that exists because , among other things, our culture has constructed it. But in the so-called real world there is no real international law. Sure there are millions of words of so-called international law, agreements among nations, countries, peoples, but there really is no international police and very little of an international lea gal system.

View a short video by me on human co operation...

The "old school" word used to describe the international world was "anarchy."

It is, it was said, "an anarchic world."

No rules except those made by the participants. The world of nations is a world of anarchy where agreement exists in a ever changing fluid and dynamic world. Look closely at the UN you will see it is mostly a collection of its members, nothing more than that.

International relations studies how counties and other international organizations act and interact in the international or global arena.

Your book will talk about competing forces of centralization and decentralization. These are valuable concepts as we move through the semester.

We will talk about the nature of power and the limits of power throughout the semester.

In this chapter, your text lays out what they see as the five "new forces" shaping our planet and, although I am no expert in history, I would like to give just a little perspective to the list.

1.) Information technology. This is a hot topic to talk about because of the web. It seems we have more information at our finger tips than ever before, but I'm not so sure the development and growth of the web is the real explosion of information technology.

Ever since the first printed Bibles in Europe, information has been spreading at a faster and faster pace. Conceptually, the world wide web existed as telegraphs in the 1800's - people could check prices in New York, or fall in love using telegrams or be swindled - just like the web... Every generations feels they are the one with the big change, but the industrial revolution started over 200 years ago and it is still going strong.

You hear people say "post industrial"... what is your house made of? mud? that car or that road or everything we wear, use and eat - all industrialized somehow. Face it, you and I live in a pretty industrial world, unlike the majority of the population of the planet.

2.) Globalization. Again, the reality of it cannot be denied, but it is hardly new. it is just a more obvious reality now. Adam Smith, in Wealth of Nations, doesn't use the world globalism but it is exactly what he is talking about. If we define the current international system as starting after world war two than we can clearly see globalism has not replaced colonialism, just given us new worlds to express the differences among the living conditions of the people of this planet.

3.) The inability of states to solve problems alone may cause more cooperation or it may cause more chaos and anarchy. Or it may be part of the reality globalization.

4.) The rise of ethnic, or what I call "tribal," identities for people - some with their own country many without - is the paradox of the modern age. The planet is shrinking and it seems so many folks long denied their lands or culture or language or religion are now more strongly identifying themselves than ever before. But how much of this is a direct result of the previous colonial era?... most or all of it.

5.) I'm not sure if this new citizen is all that strong against repressive and brutal regimes. History has shown rulers can be cruel and spiteful against their enemies and perceived enemies. As Stalin reportedly once said about the Pope: "How many tanks does the Pope have?"

 

JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT:

Every successful Politician (from FDR to Hitler to Stalin to Clinton) has followed the Six Tactics of Persuasion. They are the same, even if the culture in which they are practiced is different. These tactic of persuasion can be sued by parents to send their child to bed or by presidents wanting senators to pass a bill. They are the key to every successful person's life, even if that person has never heard of them. 

The Six Tactics of Persuasion. ( R. Neustadt , Presidential Power )

So you want some one (or group) to do something. Your power and credibility is limited and finite (no matter who you are) so you should always be aware of it and conserve it. Use it to make it stronger, or mis-use it and lose it. 

What's the easiest way to get some one to do something? 

(1) Ask - explain your position.
It may not be enough to get people to do what you want, but if it is, then why do any more than that? 

Maybe asking isn't enough - do the second tactic -
(2) Make an emotional appeal.
Don't appeal to your own emotions. If you want others to do things then you must stay focused on others and appeal to their emotions. The Parent who says: "Do it 'cause I'm the Dad and I said so." Can only say this if he has done his work as a parent and the child has a positive definition of "dad." LBJ (President Johnson) used to have his staff wake him in the middle of the night so he could call senators and wake them to remind them: "tomorrow, your country needs you to vote…" All successful politicians stay focused on others, not on themselves. 

If the first two tactics don't work, you need to move to the third tactic.
(3) Make a vague promise.
Why a vague promise? So you don't have to keep it? No, just the opposite, make a vague promise so that you CAN keep it. I'm sure you've all been told by someone: "I'll look into it and see what can be done." And you knew they were blowing you off. Did you go back to that person? But if someone told you that and then came back to you and said: "I looked into it and we can't help you, but those guys over there can." That person has helped you (and those other guys) and has gained credibility from you (and those other guys). 

(4) Call in past favors.  This is where you use guilt, don't squander guilt at tactic #2. Guilt is finite. In order to call in past favors that means that politicians help people? What's this? Hitler helped people? Sadam Hussein helps people? Yes. All people? No only those people who keep him in power. Just like Clinton, Reagan, Churchill or whomever, just a different culture. If you want power, do things for people.  If you want to amass power and enhance your credibility, get positive things done for people. 

(5) Grant a current favor.
Unlike the promise, keep this specific and limited. If you start here, everyone will want something, so be careful what favors you grant. The more you do, the more people will ask, the more you will be able to do, the more past favors to call in…

(6) Threaten reprisals.
T his doesn't necessarily mean violence, but violence is part of the human condition. If politics is like your book says: "deciding who gets what, when and how" then when someone doesn't get their's they may perceive violence has been done to them. A reprisal may be: "Do this or I won't talk to you again." But don't threaten anything you can't do, or wouldn't do. In fact what you think doesn't matter. The other must perceive you as having the ability and the will to carry out the threat. Don't threaten anything that will cost you more than what you get if the person does what you want. 

I believe it was Isaac Asimov who wrote: "Violence is the final refuge of the incompetent." 

As we look at each chapter, keep these tactics in mind.  Given that our society is full of people, maybe power is the ability to "work and play well with others."  Or maybe, power is just getting anything done at all.

Something more to think about:

How much power do you have in your life?  What titles or formal authorities do you have?  How do they relate to your actual ability to get things accomplished in your life?  Do you use the tactics of persuasion in your life?  Maybe you should.