Skip to content

Details

This is going to be an online meetup using Zoom. If you've never used Zoom before, don't worry — it's easy to use and free to join.

Click on the link above at the scheduled date/time to log in...

***

***

UNDERSTANDING (NEO)CLASSICAL REALISM THROUGH FICTION:
WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM SCHEMING NOBLES & CRIMINAL MASTERMINDS?

INTRODUCTION:

“How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation... Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.”
- Machiavelli, The Prince

In this meetup, we'll look at some famous clips from novels, films, and TV shows that help illustrate some fundamental principles from the realist school of thought in international relations, specifically a newer framework called "neoclassical realism" which tries to integrate some of the lost lessons from "classical realism".

Almost always, the lines of dialogue & actions of a character in fiction that roughly align with realism are those of cynical anti-heroes and nefarious villains, quite often scheming nobles in a medieval or ancient setting or criminal masterminds in a modern setting. This makes sense narratively, since the ways in which realists see politics clashes fundamentally with the average person's sense of morality. As William F. Owen (the Deputy Editor of The Journal of Military Operations) noted in his article "Strategy Is For The Bad Guys", "the majority of what we see and read essentially leads to a popular view of real strategy; that it is somehow a form of negative activity, done by the bad men".

So what is the "realist" school of thought in international relations, and more specifically what are the "classical" and "neoclassical" forms of realism that I mentioned above? In general, realism is a framework in international relations that views world politics as a never-ending competition among self-interested states vying for power in a world devoid of a central authority. Realist IR theory developed in 3 phases:

  1. "Classical realism" was a school of thought in international relations that emerged in the 1930s in opposition to the "idealism" (what we now call "liberalism") that dominated geopolitical discourse in the wake of WW1, and it flourished after WW2. Early realist scholars like George Kennan and Hans Morgenthau drew upon the classical teachings of thinkers like Thucydides, Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes that emerged from their observations on war, political instability, and state-building. They viewed politics as driven by the darker aspects of human nature—fear, hatred, ambition—often highlighting the tragic tension between moral ideals and political necessity.
  2. "Structural Realism", a.k.a. "Neorealism", was developed during the Cold War by IR scholars like Thomas Schelling and Kenneth Walz as a response to policymakers' desire for a more scientific version of realism, and it was highly influential by the 1960s-70s. It shifted the focus away from trying to draw lessons from history to modeling the structure of the international system, arguing that the absence of a central authority (anarchy) forces states to compete for security and power regardless of their internal characteristics. While it was revolutionary for its time, today structural realism is often faulted for an over-reliance on game theory to understand adversaries and the assumption that states are "rational unitary actors" whereas contemporary IR scholars tend to see policies emerging from a nexus of a state's elite factions with various motives & ideologies.
  3. "Neoclassical Realism" is a more recent post–Cold War development and builds on both traditions by arguing that while systemic pressures shape the incentives states face, domestic politics and leader perceptions determine how those pressures are interpreted and acted upon. In this discussion, the fictional portrayals of Machiavellian strategists are best interpreted through this "neoclassical realist" lens since they can help us understand foreign policy as not simply dictated by game theory and the balance of power, but filtered through internal factors like elite competition and domestic political constraints.

So which fictional examples will we use to elucidate principles from classical realism that have reemerged in neoclassical realism?

In the 1st section, we'll look at a passage from Cormac McCarthy's 1985 novel Blood Meridian where the main villain, Judge Holden, and some of his fellow Indian-fighters discuss the nature of war. The novel is loosely based on the atrocities committed by the Glanton gang in the American Southwest in the 1840s-50s, as related by one of their former members, Samuel Chamberlain, in his memoir, My Confession: The Recollections of a Rogue (published posthumously in 1956). We'll compare Judge Holden's claim that "war was always here" to Thomas Hobbes description of the state of nature as "nasty, brutish and short". We'll also compare Holden's dark musings to strains of thought found in classical thinkers, such as Heraclitus who famously said that "War is father of all" and Thucydides whose Melian dialogue has the Athenian envoys argue that "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".

In the 2nd section, we'll look at the famous scene from Francis Ford Coppola's 1972 film The Godfather where the Corleone crime family discusses how to deal with Virgil "The Turk" Sollozo, a rival crime boss who attempted to assassinate Vito Corleone, the family's patriarch, to force them to allow his drug-dealing into their territory. The film is based on based on Mario Puzo's best-selling 1969 novel, which in turn was loosely based on the real Italian-American mafia organization - the "Five Families" - that controlled multiple rackets in New York City in the mid 20th century. We'll compare the Godfather's view of violence to Carl von Clausewitz's famous quote from On War (1832) that "war is the continuation of politics by other means" and Thomas Schelling's observation in Arms and Influence (1966) that "The power to hurt is bargaining power. To exploit it is diplomacy—vicious diplomacy, but diplomacy".

In the 3rd section, we'll look at a clip from the 1993 coming-of-age film A Bronx Tale, which is loosely based on the real-life experiences of actor & director Chazz Palminteri growing up in the Bronx in the 1950s. In this scene. a local mob boss explains to his young protege what he learned from reading Machiavelli's The Prince about keeping one's followers loyal. We'll compare his advice to some of the major principles from The Dictator's Handbook, a 2011 non-fiction book by the political scientists Bruce Bueno de Mesquita & Alistair Smith that attempted to explain their "selectorate theory" to a popular audience.

In the 4th section, we'll look at a scene from the 1995 blockbuster film Braveheart, which was loosely based on the lives of Scottish leaders William Wallace and Robert the Bruce during the First War of Scottish Independence (1296-1328) against the English crown. We'll compare the cynical advice Robert the Bruce receives from his father - i.e. to play both sides of the rebellion - to the geopolitical strategy known as "hedging" which (along with "balancing" and "bandwagoning") is a common way that small states try to preserve themselves in a world dominated by major powers. We'll also consider how hedging & switching sides can be justified by Lord Palmerston's famous dictum, oft paraphrased as "nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests."

In the 5th section, we'll look at a famous scene from Season 3, Episode 8 of HBO's TV series Game of Thrones where two of the king's scheming advisors, Lord Varys (a.k.a. The Spider, Master of Whispers) and Lord Petyr Baelish (a.k.a. Littlefinger, Master of Coin) verbally spar with each other over their competing agendas. Varys justifies his own machinations by claiming he acts "for the good of the realm", whereas Littlefinger is unabashedly more self-interested and admits he's not averse to unleashing chaos since he sees it as a ladder that the ambitious person can climb. We'll compare this to some arguments from Peter Turchin's 2023 non-fiction book End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites and the Path of Political Disintegration, focusing on how aspiring elites often turn to demagoguery & rebellion if they feel the normal paths to higher status are blocked.

Two of the things you'll probably notice when you compare the fictional portrayals of scheming characters to clips from political science lectures are: (1) the fictional portrayals are far more emotionally provocative & memorable - which makes them good teaching aids - but (as noted above) they frame this mode of strategic thinking as something only "bad guys" engage in, (2) the lectures are somewhat dry & boring compared to the fiction, but they're much more precise about why it's rational for an effective leader to think & act in this sort of strategic way, even though it seems underhanded & immoral to most laypeople.

RELEVANT MATERIAL FROM PAST MEETUPS:

Back in Sept. 2021, we had a meetup entitled "What Causes Wars?" The introduction section explains a variety of concepts from realism, such as: (1) the bargaining model of war and common bargaining failures, (2) how preventive war is linked to the "Thucydides trap" (i.e. a declining or stagnant power's fear of a rising power). (3) the conflict between "hegemonic stability theory" and "balance of power theory" in terms of which type of world order produces less major wars, (4) how "selectorate theory", "democratic peace theory" and "capitalist peace theory" offer different explanations for how the cost/benefit calculation for war varies between autocracies & democracies, (5) how "deterrence theory" works and relates to the "stability-instability paradox" where states with strong deterrence (e.g. nuclear weapons) are often more willing to engage in minor conflicts.

Back in July 2023, we had a meetup entitled "The Implicit Politics of War Films/Games" where we looked at the way the military & intelligence agencies had been portrayed in the films, TV shows & video games of the 2000s-2010s and what sorts of implicit messages about US foreign policy viewers might glean from this.

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the major concepts in the "neoclassical realist" school of IR theory and how they appear in literature, films, and TV shows. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about 65 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. I've listed some questions under each section to stimulate discussion. We'll do our best to address most of them, as well as whatever other questions our members raise. I figure we'll spend about 25 minutes on each section.

***

I. BLOOD MERIDIAN: JUDGE HOLDEN ON WAR, HUMAN NATURE & ENTROPY:

  • In a 1992 interview, Cormac McCarthy said ""There's no such thing as life without bloodshed. I think the notion that the species can be improved in some way, that everyone could live in harmony, is a really dangerous idea. Those who are afflicted with this notion are the first ones to give up their souls, their freedom." How does this color your view of Blood Meridian's discussion of war?
  • Is the frontier violence in "Blood Meridian" (and "The Road") McCarthy's meditation on the Hobbesian state of nature? Is McCarthy thinking of Darwinian evolution when he has Judge Holden say, "War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him." As a lapsed Catholic, why might he equate this with Hell and a figure like Judge Holden with Satan?
  • Does recent work in anthropology challenge or reinforce Hobbes' claim that war is rooted in human nature and only the state's "monopoly on violence" (Max Weber's term) can prevent it?
  • Judge Holden compares war to a game of chance, which recalls the assassin in "No Country for Old Men" who forces a random man to bet his life on a coin toss. How is this different than the role Clausewitz thinks chance plays in war (i.e. related to the "fog of war")?
  • Judge Holden's statement that "War is at last a forcing of the unity of existence. War is god," evokes Heraclitus who famously said "War is the father of all, and king of all. He renders some gods, others men; he makes some slaves, others free." Is this making the same as point as Thucydides' Melian dialogue where the Athenian envoy proclaims: "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must"?
  • What might Heraclitus have meant when he said, "Homer was wrong in saying: 'Would that strife might perish from among gods and men!' He did not see that he was praying for the destruction of the universe, for, if his prayer were heard, all things would pass away"? How does this differ from Faust's Mephistopheles who says: "I am the spirit that negates. And rightly so, for all that comes to be. Deserves to perish wretchedly; 'Twere better nothing would begin"?
  • Why do some IR realists who think hegemonic war is necessary to create new world orders, and some complexity theorists think war is necessitated by the laws of thermodynamics for the evolution of complex societies (i.e. exporting entropy)? Is this similar to Heraclitus's view that "strife is justice"?

1a) Cormac McCarthy, "Blood Meridian - The Judge on War" (video - 7:49 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etOkZ6YBAZY

1b) John Green, "War & Human Nature" (video - 10:36 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NIgqS47m5k

II. THE GODFATHER: TOM HAGEN, SONNY & MICHAEL CORLEONE ON WAR AS "JUST BUSINESS" (A.K.A. "POLITICS BY OTHER MEANS"):

  • What are edgelords who quote the Godfather's line about violence as "strictly business" or Clausewitz's line about war as "the continuation of politics by other means" missing? Were Tom Hagen & Clausewitz merely trying to signal that they were cold-blooded killers?
  • Samuel Francis thinks Tom Hagen is Machiavelli's "fox" and Sonny is his "lion" and Michael is the "Prince" who is both. Similarly, a couple IR realists (A. Wess Mitchell & John Hulsman) wrote "The Godfather Doctrine" and compared Tom Hagen to a liberal institutionalist, Sonny to a neocon hawk, and Michael to a realist who wisely synthesizes their views? Are these good analogies, or do they neglect the tragic isolation of Michael by the third film?
  • Why did Clausewitz view stirring up anger in the populace as a necessary part of war strategy, and how does that compare to Michael's point about getting journalists to portray Capt. McCluskey as a crooked cop?
  • Thomas Schelling said "the power to hurt is bargaining power" - how does this scene exemplify the use of violence for "crisis bargaining" and the way miscalculations can lead to escalation?
  • Is Clemenza right to compare the Turk's attempt to negotiate after having Don Corleone shot to Hitler's meeting with Chamberlain at Munich after the annexation of the Sudetenland - i.e. it shows the folly of "appeasement"?
  • Does Michael's decision to escalate conflict serve a clear political purpose, or does it risk becoming self-perpetuating?

2a) The Godfather, "They shot my father, it's personal" (video - 6:35 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbknVmw-GtA&t=6s

2b) Jim Ellis, "USAWC expert discusses Clausewitz" (video - 30:34 min, start at 25:05)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSF_UtEWnCg&t=25m5s

III. A BRONX TALE: SONNY TELLS "C" HOW TO ENSURE YOUR FOLLOWERS STAY LOYAL:

  • What do people who quote Machiavelli as saying "it is better to be feared than loved" miss? How might the Bronx Tale scene help them get the larger point?
  • To what extent does Sonny's advice about paying your followers just enough to keep them loyal align with Bueno de Mesquita's "Five Rules of Power Politics" derived from his selectorate theory?
  • Chapter 16 of "The Prince" warns leaders about taxing their populace too much in order to have money to spend lavishly? Does that contradict Buence de Mesquita's advice
  • Is Machiavelli better understood as a theorist of mass stability rather than elite manipulation (as Zhang suggests)?
  • Does selectorate theory oversimplify human motivation by focusing too heavily on material incentives (as Peter Turchin argues)? Did Machiavelli's advice to princes to appear virtuous suggest he understood that most people also value non-material things?

3a) A Bronx Tale, "Is it better to be loved or feared?" (video - 3:55 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUWbPpgAFxI

3b) Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, "The Five Rules of Power Politics" (video - 6:15 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DON-aM2tze4

IV. BRAVEHEART: ROBERT THE BRUCE'S FATHER ON STRATEGIC HEDGING (VS BALANCING OR BANDWAGONING):

  • Does Wallace’s approach as it's presented in Braveheart represent moral clarity or strategic recklessness?
  • Does the way Braveheart paints the Scottish nobles who value their family's position over Scottish independence depend on an anachronistic view of Scottish nationalism?
  • Were the Scottish nobles immoral opportunists—or rational actors responding to uncertainty and divided loyalties?
  • If we accept the logic behind Lord Palmerston's famous dictum that a nation has "no permanent allies or enemies, only permanent interests", does this justify switching sides?
  • How do the concepts of hedging, balancing, and band-wagoning help explain the behavior of weaker actors in great power conflicts, e.g. Scotland faced with English-French rivalry in the early 1300s, or the Southeast Asian nations faced by US-China rivalry today?

4a) Braveheart, "Robert the Bruce and Father [discuss William Wallace's rebellion]'" (video - 2:14 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bAuK3xobM0

4b) Hugo Agarza, "Hedging (Choosing China and the US) - International Relations Course #10?" (video - 7:26 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5XSDS9u75c

V. GAME OF THRONES: LITTLEFINGER ON THE FICTION OF "THE REALM" & HOW "CHAOS IS A LADDER" FOR COUNTER-ELITES:

  • To what extent does Varys's conception of "the good of the realm" align with modern notions of "national interest" and/or "the liberal international order"? Is Littlefinger right or wrong to regard this as a silly fiction?
  • Why does Littlefinger think "chaos is a ladder", and how does this relate to Peter Turchin's theories on how frustrated counter-elites can lead to political instability?
  • Did political instability in "Game of Thrones" arise more from deliberate actions by elites & counter-elites or systemic pressures? How about in the real world?
  • To what extent is Littlefinger's view that "chaos is a ladder" similar to Rahm Emanuel's quote about "never let a crisis go to waste" - and is the latter view necessarily sinister (as Brittany Hunter argues)?
  • How does Michael Bang Petersen’s personality trait “need for chaos” help explain why some individuals actively seek instability?
  • What determines whether a demagogue becomes a tyrant — personal ambition or institutional weakness (as argued by Edmund Stewart)?

5a) Game of Thrones, "Littlefinger vs Varys - Chaos is a Ladder" (video - 3:04 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH7sIOBJqLA

5b) Peter Turchin, "How Elite Surplus Led to the MAGA Reshuffling of Power'" (video - 13:11 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajlLd26RE8

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Related topics

Intellectual Discussions
Military
International Relations
Foreign Policy Topics
Pop Culture

You may also like