A Real Problem; Hume ruins it for Realists

In the world of international relations, there are several major philosophical hubs of influence that act as teams in the same professional sports league. There are the Neo-Liberals who pride themselves on approaching peace above all at most costs. There are also Constructivists (Critical Theorists) who instead see international relations as something dominated not by states but by ideas that transcend those entities. Finally, there are realists, who attest that force and the study of human conflict determines the outcome of international relations.

Normally, these three bicker about each-other and periodically appear in subsequent chapters of college textbooks, still bickering about each-other. There are some outside voices that once in a while present themselves to factor into the debate as to which school of thought is the "least wrong" of the three, but those attacks normally repeat what each side has already said about the other.

This is why it seemed odd to me to find such a weird objection to one of the schools of international relations, ironically the one I most vehemently defend, to come from, philosophically speaking at least, the most obvious source of theoretical objections, one David Hume.

This is a well known joke within philosophical circles given Hume's skepticism; he isn't actually a philosopher so much as he is a philosophical "party-pooper". Joking aside Hume's (arguably) most famous piece of skepticism in my view creates one of the most condemning pieces of evidence against Realism, attacking perhaps its core and its biggest pillar. I of course am talking about his "Problem of Induction".

To show why Hume's problem applies to Realism, I will first give the best case for Realism using the very argument that Hume would disavow. I will then go on to explain the Problem of Induction, hopefully making my worry come to light by putting the two ideas head to head.

Realism is historically split into two eras of explaining the theory. The first comes from classical Realism which relays a rather dark view of human nature (Hobbes, Morgenthau and company) to expose that the only thing states and the people who run them are interested in is power and what power gives them.This view of the world is most often defended by a long laundry list of atrocious acts committed by man after the search of power and riches.

The second comes from Structural Realism or Neo-Realism which is mostly attributable to Kenneth Waltz and his approach that tries to stay as far away from topics of human nature and disposition as possible. Waltz instead tried to make Realism apply as a science and hoped to describe the actions of states the same way someone decides which store to go to in order to buy groceries; by making the most "economical" decision. To Waltz, states reason to try to maximize the benefits from whatever costs they will incur, and that to him is what defines the international agenda.

With that very fast crash course in realist IR theory over, I will now go on to give an even more brutal crash course on the Problem of Induction. The scene used by almost all philosophy professors is the same; imagine a lake filled with white swans.

For some reason, someone who has far too much time on their hands decides to document, for 100 days, what sort of swans congregate on this lake. For 100 days, this poor soul drags his or her lawn chair out on the edge of the lake and starts counting away, finding that these last 100 days have only been filled with white swans. This amateur ornithologist then deduces that this particular lake only houses white swans, packs up his/her chair, and heads home proud that they've reached such an important conclusion. Unfortunately for them, that person has just wasted 100 days if Hume is to be listened to.

Just because you saw an event happen for 100 times in a row does in no way give you more reason to have a justified true belief in expecting it to happen 101 times than you do going from a single event to expecting a second. Simply put, inducing from a frequency of events does not give enough reason to be able to claim to have knowledge about a specific event of the world. Going back to the swan example, the person watching the swans has no good reason to believe that on the 101st day a black swan will appear, ruining his or her previous instinctual thought.

If you are able to put two and two together, you are probably able to see where Hume becomes a major pain in the side for all realists. First of all, the Problem of Induction takes away the biggest sword in the arsenal of the classical realist, because now his/her claim that history shows a steady track record of terrible acts committed by those in power fully embodies the example of the swan-whisperer, giving them no real reason to expect the world to always produce bad people.

Even Waltz is not safe, no matter how far away he wants to get from philosophical discussions because even he is invoking history when he claims that states are rational and have the capacity to reason. Now, some will say that introspection and therefore internal reasoning is outside the realm of the Problem of Induction, but then those people will have to also try to explain that a state reasons the same way a person does which is ridiculous (too many differences in scope, states have a much more limited list of interests than people, states have to "guess" whether or not other states are "reasonable" or not much more than people do which changes how reasoning is done).

Parentheses aside, states do not have introspection and do not mentally progress over time like individuals, so even Waltz is forced to say that most states are rational because of a historical record. Let's assume however that state reasoning is safe and that states do reason like people; you would still have to get over the fact that tomorrow morning there will still be a historically relevant international structure based on the relevant international structure of yesterday which by itself is null and void because of the Problem of Induction.

So, is this problem the end for Realism? Should we all just start throwing Leviathan in a giant fire and choose which of the remaining  two theories sounds the best? At this point, it almost looks like it. This critique however should not dismay the realist, it should instead empower him/her, especially Neo-Realists, to separate the school of thought from amateur psychology even more than Waltz wanted to do. The reason why most realists are considered to have been the kids at school who were picked on the most is because the intuition most of us have about human nature producing only jerks in society is just that; an intuition not founded by scientific evidence of said human nature.

All that Hume has done here is remind us that there needs to be a more refined explanation for why balance of power and the international structure which it should create can be taken seriously. If anything, a Humean critique of Realism is the undercurrent that leads all other critiques of it; Neo-Liberals and Constructivists will very quickly point out that their ideas stem much less from a direct observation of the world and instead on logical explanations for what the direct observation of the world means. Realists do not have this luxury and have to do more work to explain what to them seems to be obvious historical evidence in their favor.

Are there any possible solutions to this problem? Probably. That answer is definitely not what most of us wanted to hear, nor is it in any way good enough to fully encapsulate the problem before us. However it is as good as we can get so far; this isn't a problem that is solved in a day, mostly because the Problem of Induction itself does not have a direct response or solution. Even Hume tried to quantify it rather than solve it by citing a pseudo-evolutionary theory of his, but those sorts of attempts are not good enough to give us any solution that fully answers the problem of the Realist historical account.

"Probably" is only adequate insofar as we quietly swallow our logical prides and accept inductive reasoning as something that although imperfect is as good as we have to try to make sense of the world, IR theory or otherwise. There must be a reason for why we reason inductively, and so there must be a reason for why some people vehemently believe in Realism and why they will, like me, continue to be Realists even though this problem continues to surface. This however is not something that can be completely ignored mostly because unlike counting swans, IR theories have a very real impact on the lives of every person on Earth in this interconnected world.

Finding a solution is important not only from a philosophical basis but also because it will give a more robust meaning to the actions that states and policy makers take as opposed to having to little logical basis for the aforementioned actions. That solution will not only make the actions and thoughts by Realists applicable, but also give an added edge of justice within the actions themselves, making Realism stronger as a school of thought and more approachable as a theory in general.






Liked what you read? Want to know when the next post is up? Then Subscribe via email (top right tab bar) or by RSS Feed.

RSS Feed

• Add to Google Reader
• View RSS Feed

Or join the Academy Facebook Page to stay up to date on everything Academy.

Rage With the Machine: A political reason for Arab Anger

Turn on the television today, and you will not go too many channels before finding some footage about riots breaking out somewhere in the Muslim world. Looking back, it has become a common occurrence to see Muslims out in the streets, chanting away at whatever the "outrage-du-jour" may be, so much so that it has awakened the old stereotype of the short-fused Arab. To be fair, not every Muslim from every  Arab country is so inclined to take part in these protests, but these more recent affairs in many countries all at once does leave one at least interested in trying to find a pattern.

In an article out in The Economist (Sept. 15-21st), the point is made that the riling up of Muslims is not at all a cultural phenomenon, nor is it to be treated as an exaggerated stereotype that a cultural phenomenon would manifest itself into given the addition of ignorance and xenophobia. Instead, stronger, more centralized political options are at play. I tend to agree with this sentiment, beyond the mere association that the article implies.

Although it may not seem like it given the level of general disorder and chaos portrayed by news networks looking to entertain the stranded at Terminal 5, most Arab countries being labeled as part of this anti-American wave have functioning democracies that host a wide array of political parties. These parties, which rely on the same tricks and schemes that all other democracies, are also interested in the same thing as all other political parties on the face of the planet; winning elections.

From time immemorial we know for a fact that a scared crowd is an attentive one, ready to be molded into the sort of voter a political party needs to have go out to the polls. Of course, different populations will be afraid of different things; Americans for instance fear fiscal irresponsibility, whereas the French fear the elimination of social benefits, and the British fear an encroaching Europe. These fears however are useless without a turn; that is political parties need to be able to have fear manifest itself into calls for action which the parties will be glad to lead. Muslim parties are no different, and there are no better masters at this turn than the far right Salafist parties in the Arab world.

The fear that they conjure up is perhaps the greatest one known to man, the fear of God. Nothing quite does the trick like invoking the displeasure of the greatest being in the universe to really get a crowd's attention. The film that sparked all these protests was also the cause of that great fear amongst Muslims this week. The turn came in the form of protests against the country who allegedly "hosted" the movie and therefore "endorsed" its message. The use of quotation marks here is not meant to oversimplify the concepts at play. It is a well known fact that leaders of Salafist parties do use the lack of information that many of their followers have given 1) their general disposition of discontent with the west 2) their trust in like-minded political parties/leaders 3) their lack of fact-checking capacities or willingness in order to make their points (something the Economist article makes quite clear).

In making these points, the Salafist parties make their turn, creating protests with neatly ordered signs and an almost infinite supply of flags to burn that result in embassy attacks and general mayhem towards the Western World. With these protests, Salafist parties achieve two big goals. For one, they either establish their party or re-affirm its potency. Political parties are essentially opportunity hoarders; that is to say they are a group bent on maintaining its position of power at any cost over other groups. These protests are essentially mini conventions which are not only very public but also very intimidating. Secondly, this intimidation helps establish a clear message which again helps in creating an attractive battle cry to the young Muslim man who is without a job, education, any sort of a future. The battle cry gives them something to live for, which is ironically as good a campaign promise as any.

All in all, the accentuation of rage is a more than effective scheme to campaign on which has been successfully tapped into by these Salafist parties in order to remain in power. Essentially, the angrier people get in these situations, the more legitimate these extremist parties become, so any fuel being added to the fire not only continues to chip away at American interests of cooperation and conversation in the Muslim world, but it also continues to worsen the lives of Muslims who have to deal with political extremism so radical that it keeps violence in the social norm. 

What is there to do about this sort of thing? The only thing that can be done from the outside is to thoroughly, socially condemn articles of expression that could be used by these parties to bring out this fury. The rest unfortunately is up to the populations who to their credit have been, through generational turnover like in any society, to become more accepting of criticism and more critical of extremism in general. This is not to say that Muslims need to abandon the idea of protecting the image (figurative and literal) of their prophet or any other facet of their religion, but they should instead abandon the idea of truly violent protests as an answer to such grievances. 

Double Take #1; "Obama to Israel: You're On Your Own" -WSJ 9/11/2012

Here's something new, a response to an article written in the Wall Street Journal this week. Readers, please let me know if this sort of thing floats your boat, and I may do more in the future.


Below is the link. The title pretty much sums it up:

Obama to Israel: You're On Your Own

No 'red lines' for Iran and no time to meet Netanyahu.

Now we all know this is not the first time we hear word of a rift between American and Israeli interests regarding security in the Middle East, but to say that the Obama administration has abandoned Israel entirely because of cautious diplomacy on the part of the State Department really does go a bit too far. 

As some of you may know, the major difference in policy here is how to treat a potentially nuclear Iran. Both President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu have stated that their intent is to not see a nuclear-armed Iran, but the United States would like to do so in as diplomatic a matter as possible, whereas Israel is much more prepared to take pre-emptive military action. Sure, these approaches are different enough to cause at least some unsettling, but nowhere near the same level as this article suggests.

Apparently, a cross-atlantic bout of words between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and PM Netanyahu over whether or not to set given deadlines/limits to Iran is enough of a sign from the United States that they have decided to not take things seriously. This idea though seems half-baked because there already is a red line drawn by the United States; no nukes for Iran, plain and simple. Also, President Obama not having the time to meet with PM Netanyahu should be taken as a sign of a withering alliance? I am almost positive that both world leaders have access to Skype if need be. IT jokes aside, it seems ridiculous to me that should the need arise for the two world leaders to coordinate on regional security issues that they would have to force a publicly known gathering. 

If anything no news of talks is a very good sign for Israel's security, not a bad one. Keep in mind the meaning of "pre-emptive". Israel will only do such a strike should they have absolute information of one headed their way. Given the fact that 1) Israel gains more international support by remaining the "underdog" (one small country surrounded by many openly belligerent ones) and therefore not pre-emptively striking whenever it pleases and 2) Israel's Mossad takes its task of protecting Israel rather seriously and does it rather well considering Israel's success in the aforementioned neighborhood, meaning a botched pre-emptive strike is rather unlikely. So, given that a pre-emptive strike would more than likely

come under a situation where an overwhelming amount of information points directly to Iranian hostilities, simply because Israel cannot afford to be wrong, nor obviously does it want to be.

That being said, so long as President Obama is not cancelling other events looking to rush over to PM Netanyahu, then we can assume that Israel has not yet found enough justification for a full scale pre-emptive strike, meaning Iran's nuclear program is at best not worrisome, meaning the effective line in the sand drawn by the United States is more than enough to effectively capitulate their message of a nuclear-free Iran. It should then follow that the United States is not telling Israel to be on their own, but rather that a diplomatic approach based on more than reliable intelligence has better long term effects than spinning revolvers at one another.

When the Courts aren't Enough; Social Buffering of the Right to Expression

Among all the rights given to man by the United States' constitution, the freedom of speech is without a doubt the most important one. "Important" here of course is a bit misleading because essentially all rights within a system of rights are equally important in the context of people's livelihoods. "Important" here simply means that it is the most popular, the most revered, and the most historically significant. That is why whenever any form of expression is doubted, questioned, trounced or threatened, no matter its source, it is almost always the case that people can play the devil's advocate to defend it. Yet we have very real and very contemporary examples of when the freedom of expression is able to generate, whether directly or indirectly, levels of harm  that force us to question the very core of the right itself.

Now, I understand that the position I am about to take will not be a popular one, but it is necessary to actually being able to achieve a robust freedom of expression without having to worry about its negative externalities. I would like to say from here on out that an unlimited sense of freedom of expression is not what we are looking for. A world where expression is in no way reprehensible would lead to certainly terrible circumstances; the infamous opinion of Just. Oliver Holmes in Schenck v. United States (1919) regarding "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" backs this claim not only theoretically but also historically. So, some limits on freedom of expression are not only allowable but necessary in order to get close to the true form of the right itself.

We can think of other moments where the freedom of expression must not be allowed to run wild and where the American government at least has acknowledged the potential dark side of expression. An act of bullying is not covered under freedom of expression if, as is most often the case when bullying does occur, harm is imposed on the victim of bullying. In that case, the bully is responsible for having caused that harm. Libel law is also another limitation on the freedom of expression; grossly or incorrectly tarnishing someone's reputation in public is obviously ridiculous to see protected any which way if the damage done is serious. So then what are we to think about the film that sparked outrage across the Muslim world this week and is linked with the death of four American diplomatic officers including an ambassador? People have already taken to their keyboards, hammering away at the keys calling out for protection under the first amendment, but I fail to see their point on this one.

Obviously, a blogger like myself may seem out of place trying to diminish the importance of the right of expression, but at the same time I feel entitled to be able to point out where certain rights or freedoms go too far in their search for personal emancipation from authority. This becomes especially the case when it is very simple to draw a line from the people behind the anti-Muslim film and the attacks on embassies. To be clear, I would like to stay away from conspiracy theories regarding the true intentions of the film-makers; I doubt the same people who have enough intelligence to make such a film have the intelligence needed to try to rig these attacks on American embassies. I do however suspect that their intention was, among others, to stimulate violent responses once the movie was made public given that attacking the Muslim prophet is a sure-fire way to instigate violence among Muslim radicals. In doing so the film-makers would very thinly prove their claim of "Muslims being violent" to be true, legitimizing their political positions.

Now, if that was the intention of the film-makers then they would obviously be directly responsible for the attacks taking shape considering that the attacks were only possible because of popular dissent with the film and by association the United States. We might not be able to figure out those true intentions however, so are the filmmakers still responsible for what has happened given that there was no real line of  intent on their part to incite violence? According to Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the film most likely would not constitute "imminent lawless action" (the current standard for limiting conflict-creating expression) in its message and be therefore constitutionally and legally protected. To that extent, we also cannot say that the film's message was directly linked with the embassy attacks. That however does leave a bit of a sour taste in your mouth; it seems weird to be satisfied with the idea that it is not reprehensible to express hateful and violence-inspiring ideas in public.

That is why, like most hate speech/expression, it is not up to the courts to decide whether or not something is reprehensible, but rather up to the public. I hope i do not incite "imminent lawless action" when I say that it is up to the public to create norms that dispel this sort of hate-speech, specifically when it has a high chance of inciting real violence abroad. Fighting hate speech directed towards groups in the U.S is nothing new, but understanding newly emerging groups or simply groups that appear elsewhere in the world may seem distant and therefore not as important. As this week has shown however, forgetting about the sensibilities of these foreign groups can hit much closer to home than we can imagine. So, we can continue to socially condemn certain forms of expression, even though constitutionally they may be allowed, so long as there is ample connection between the expression and indirect forms of violence stemming from it. Otherwise, we sit in a Catch-22 of sorts, trying to harbor a right we hold so dear but that sometimes comes back to haunt us instead. Social tinkering with what sort of expression is allowed can act as a supplement to what the constitutional understanding does not cover, in this case more indirect instances of speech generating violence.

Beyond Bengazhi; Why Moving Beyond the Embassy Attacks is the Right Thing to Do

As Libyan and American authorities continue to try to decipher the exact happenings of the night of the 11th in Benghazi, there are some facts which do not need much elaboration to figure out. 

The first is that whoever produced the film "Desert Warrior", a supposed Sam Bassiel (or Bassil or Bacile) as well as his financial backers who are still to be determined, quite frankly fall into a category of people which the English language fails to fully encapsulate their ignorance-generated hate. The people behind the movie that sparked the events in Arab world this week are  truly some of the worst sorts of people that society can offer; not only are their claims of Islam's messenger wholly wrong and grossly offensive to anyone, let alone Muslims of faith, but they “cunningly” prove their point by hoping to incite anger and more importantly violence in the exact culture they are misjudging. 

This however brings me to a second realization; the influence and reach of terrorist organizations in the Muslim world are not as crumbling as we once thought. While we can openly judge the actions of the film's creators to have been outrageously insensitive at best, their lack of oversight regarding the possibility of ensuing violence is not enough justification for those who feel angry about the defamation of their prophet to turn to outright violence and murder in their frustration. It is foolish of us to expect a sudden change of heart amongst Muslims regarding how closely they covet the importance of the Muslim Prophet, but it is very much so within our bounds to condemn violence that stems from the hate. The organized militants know this fact, and still have the capacities to use it as fuel to achieve their nefarious ends. 

The message here is simple and unfortunately an old one; when extremes take to fighting, the moderates suffer, often times suffering a great deal. Those who this week lost their lives, as well as the security forces who fought off extremists and the disengaged general public near the fighting are those essentially caught in the middle. 

The real issues here however will develop in the weeks and months ahead as the U.S tries to put back the pieces of what has been a rather successful tenure of foreign policy by the Obama administration. Between reducing the power of Al-Qaeda and aiding in the Arab Spring both militarily and diplomatically, the U.S has had a rather productive last three years re-building relations with the Muslim world. This latest string of attacks not only reminds us that terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda are still more than alive and strong, but also that they are present in parts of the world where massive changes also create massive gaps for malevolent organizations to plant roots in and carry out their attacks.

This is not to say that Lybian and Egyptian government forces are incapable of protecting their own sovereignty, but it cannot go unnoticed that both territories have more issues of stability coming out of their own respective revolutions than do nations who remained conflict-less. That being said, it is still important to note that the populations at hand here are willing to change their political outlook, but their social and religious standards do not seem to have wandered far in the same period of change. Again, this is not something to condemn, but rather something to better understand in order to make sure that while steps forward in international relations are important, preventing steps backwards is just as important; that is to say that taking a more delicate approach when dealing with specifically Muslim affairs is not a sign of weakness but a twofold sign of diligence for the work that has already been done and a sign of respect to many people around the globe.

It is important to remember that, like President G.W. Bush said in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the U.S condemns terrorists, not Muslims. Although for some, including the makers of the incendiary film, that differentiation is more difficult to make, it is not excuse enough to change policies with the countries who have had lapses in security for American diplomatic missions. Instead the best course of action would be to basically stay the course.

Admittedly, greater efforts to coordinate security between the host nations and the missions must be taken into account in the coming days in order to prevent similar amounts of violence from repeating themselves. More importantly however the U.S must continue to make its appearance look not only appealing to the Muslim world but also sincere. The U.S has, for better or for worse, a reputation as a nation that is looking to sell not only its goods but also itself, making efforts to show a new American face suspect to most abroad. These last three years have been central to an attempt to establish a new U.S willing to treat the rest of the world as an equal and have the effort be genuine. That is what has allowed the more moderate Libyan and Egyptian majority obviously not under the direct influence of Al-Qaeda come out in open support of the U.S and more importantly show heartfelt sympathy and sorrow for those killed.

The moving of troops into the area now will serve the purpose of imposing justice, but only that which will be necessary. An excessive amount of time spent in the area by American forces will only exacerbate a problem of trust with Egypt as well as entice more conflict in Libya itself. Keen diplomacy to show commitment even through struggle will be the best form of protection against a potentially resurgent Al-Qaeda in this part of the world. By portraying itself as reliable and genuine, the American message of solidarity with a changing Arab world will naturally defuse tension and lessen the chances of violent flare-ups like this significantly by taking the anger out of the populace and leaving violent militants with less fuel for their fire.

This crisis has the possibility of setting a precedent in which the U.S is capable of enacting justice when attacked without running the risk of losing the diplomatic status quo with both the corresponding country and its people. By remaining steadfast in its understanding of who the real enemy is, paired with genuine comradeship with Arab countries, the U.S should be able to continue improving relations rather than having to backtrack years of work in mere days.