From Black n White to Shades of Grey

“Sab Gol Maal Hai”- a phrase from a popular Hindi movie - seems to be best positioned to describe the disciplines of International Security and International Relations. The English translation (‘everything is a confusing and sinister problem’) doesn’t quite cover the hilariousness of the phrase, but the astounding ambiguity and confusion that these disciplines house would indeed sound quite funny to the common observer. 

In his piece titled “Security and Self: Reflections of a fallen Realist”, Ken Booth gives us a detailed account of how the ‘self’ governs our understanding of the world. Booth starts off as a Realist and then ends up disillusioned with the theoretical constructs of Realism. He links his changing perspectives with his own evolution as a person. The professor begins as a student in the early years of the Cold War, an era where Realists dominated the classrooms of the West. He is deeply influenced by his times and his own Childhood (growing up in the Cold War era in Yorkshire, England). However, he starts to question the Realists of his times and also notes that they have not presented the deep moral concerns that early Realists had when they were studying the field of International Relations. As a junior faculty, he starts to question Realism slowly and evolves to be an opponent of the Vietnam War. Steadily, he sheds off the Realist mindset and becomes open to critical theories. Towards later years, he comes around to accepting how all existing theories are described from a man’s perspective and how the issue of gender has been ignored in International Relations. 

Booth’s evolution as an academic is parallel to his evolution as a person and he seems to implicitly suggest that someone’s standpoint is what governs their view of the world. This may or may not be the case with each and every person. But, the most important assertion he makes is that one should not stick to the viewpoints that one formulates in their early 20s. Life goes on and people grow. 

My own view is that there is some link between our sense of self and the way we see the world. But, this is not necessarily the entire truth. Everyone also has the innate ability to reflect on things in different ways. One’s sense of self may not always mediate one’s viewpoint. If that were the case, then identities would always be the best way to view how a person would see the world. As efficient and simple as that might sound, the truth (in my opinion) is somewhat more complicated. 

Our sense of self is an ever-evolving phenomena, but our opinions are also driven by logic and circumstances. I started my own undergraduate degree with a profound interest in geopolitics. But, later, I also began to develop an interest in how the economy affects international politics. However, my sense of self has not had to change for that to happen. 

In a similar vein,  I have also not developed a profound affiliation towards any theory (though I am slightly biased towards Realism). In my first year, I was introduced to Realism, Marxism, Liberalism, Feminism and other important theories of International Relations. Different professors have promoted different theories according to their own standpoints, but as I approach the final quarter of my second year, I have begun to recognize that all theories are only perspectives. My bent toward Realism is not because my faculty members promoted that theory or because of any of my identities (my gender, caste, class or nationality). My education is giving me a broad view of all major theories, but my preference is coming by watching ground observations. 

My interest in geopolitics was always a thematic one. I liked to see how nations intervened in each other's affairs and I had a greater interest in war. I do not know why I had an interest in these topics, but I can safely say that my sense of self as a boy did not have a bearing on it ( I am a peaceful person XD). Interests can emanate out of vacuum. There is no need for an explanation for one’s interest and it is not necessary that someone’s identity always positions their interest. Through my education, I have been exposed to numerous issues of security other than war (domestic violence, honor killings and inequality- mostly through the Shepherd reading) and I recognize that they are problems that individuals and oppressed groups fight everyday.  I also agree with the fact that these are security issues that the international community must look into. However, it would be incorrect to say that my sense of self has anything to do with my view. My security interests have merely expanded from war to other issues.

Moving aside from my own story, one can also look at the fact that there can be alternative explanations for the same phenomena. But what one chooses to be the most appropriate explanation is also borne out of a sense of logic (not necessarily a sense of self). Tarik Barkawi, in his piece, argues that America’s actions in Iraq were mediated by its civilizing mission. That its way of looking at Al Qaeda and Islamist militants is influenced by a certain view. However, an alternate argument can be that the invasion was not just because of the so-called civilizing mission but also because of interests in controlling Iraqi oil fields and toppling an overly-independent Arab regime. Ultimately, Barkawi’s assertion still cannot answer why it was Iraq first and not some other middle eastern dictatorship. He also does not take into account the possibility that rhetoric that is used to justify war may not be the actual reason behind it. The rhetoric could only be a veil that covers the true reason. Ultimately, we can only make a reasonable guess.

  I believe that the true test of a discipline comes when one asks if it helps decision-makers make a decision. One can say that one’s view of the self plays some limited role in helping one understand the implications of one’s decision. But the self is not the only thing that influences our perspective: the situation, the people around us and our own ambitions and possibilities are equally important. There is a relationship between identity and theory, but theory can also be divorced from identity. To conclude, the relationship between the self and theory /interest is unclear. It is far from black n white, it is grey and it shall remain so.