Greeks, neuroscience, and international relations

TY - CHAP

T1 - Greeks, neuroscience, and international relations

AU - Lebow, Richard Ned

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - In their introduction, the editors contend that International Relations theorists address human beings in two distinct ways. One option is to formulate implicit or explicit models of human nature and use them deductively or inductively to account for patterns of behavior. This orientation is empiricist and essentializing. The second option is to attempt to capture critical aspects of the human in world politics with concepts that forego reference to human beings. This orientation is anti-essentializing and anti-determinist. My own approach, and my Cultural Theory of International Relations, straddles these two approaches. I draw on an ancient Greek model of human nature to posit and explore human needs and emotions relevant to foreign policy and international relations. My theory is in no way essentializing because these needs and emotions are mediated by culture and agency. It provides the starting point for an explanatory narrative or forward looking forecast that combines the general with idiosyncratic features of context. Reason and affect are central to my theory, and I gave them equal billing. This is in sharp contrast to philosophers who, with some notable exceptions, value reason over affect and consider the former necessary to tame our emotions and therefore enable us to rise above animals in our behavior and accomplishments. From Plato to Rawls, philosophers have emphasized the need for reason to constrain or channel emotions if political orders are to be created and preserved. Political scientists and psychologists are found in the same camp. They have long assumed that emotional arousal reduces the ability of people to carry out complex cognitive tasks or make good decisions. From the time of the ancient Greeks there have also been thinkers alert to the personal and social benefits of emotions, among them Rousseau and Adam Smith. In the last decade, research in neuroscience has begun to explore the relationship between cognition and affect, and numerous studies indicate that they interact in complex, often positive ways that are still poorly understood. In this chapter, I summarize the debate about emotion and reason by drawing on ancient and modern sources.

AB - In their introduction, the editors contend that International Relations theorists address human beings in two distinct ways. One option is to formulate implicit or explicit models of human nature and use them deductively or inductively to account for patterns of behavior. This orientation is empiricist and essentializing. The second option is to attempt to capture critical aspects of the human in world politics with concepts that forego reference to human beings. This orientation is anti-essentializing and anti-determinist. My own approach, and my Cultural Theory of International Relations, straddles these two approaches. I draw on an ancient Greek model of human nature to posit and explore human needs and emotions relevant to foreign policy and international relations. My theory is in no way essentializing because these needs and emotions are mediated by culture and agency. It provides the starting point for an explanatory narrative or forward looking forecast that combines the general with idiosyncratic features of context. Reason and affect are central to my theory, and I gave them equal billing. This is in sharp contrast to philosophers who, with some notable exceptions, value reason over affect and consider the former necessary to tame our emotions and therefore enable us to rise above animals in our behavior and accomplishments. From Plato to Rawls, philosophers have emphasized the need for reason to constrain or channel emotions if political orders are to be created and preserved. Political scientists and psychologists are found in the same camp. They have long assumed that emotional arousal reduces the ability of people to carry out complex cognitive tasks or make good decisions. From the time of the ancient Greeks there have also been thinkers alert to the personal and social benefits of emotions, among them Rousseau and Adam Smith. In the last decade, research in neuroscience has begun to explore the relationship between cognition and affect, and numerous studies indicate that they interact in complex, often positive ways that are still poorly understood. In this chapter, I summarize the debate about emotion and reason by drawing on ancient and modern sources.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84954290415&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9781316337042.007

DO - 10.1017/CBO9781316337042.007

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84954290415

SN - 9781316337042

SN - 9781107116252

SP - 132

EP - 155

BT - Human Beings in International Relations

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -