Philosophical Interlude
This may be an opportune moment to discuss at a rather nerdy length the theory which occurred to me while I was laying drunk in a roundabout in the Baross utca in Budapest. Like the great man said, we are speaking of a mild inability to stand up.
If, as Morgenthau and Niebuhr proposed, states behave in a manner based in and parallel to basic human nature, then it stands to reason that the converse should be true: that individual human beings in a similar environment will behave in generally the same manner as sovereign states. Since diplomatic relations between states exist in an anarchic system and since individuals engaging in interpersonal relationships likewise exist in an anarchic system, we should be able to assume this commonality of behavior exists. And since the actions of, say, Austria from 1848-1866 are much more heavily documented, analyzed, and explained than the behavior of, say, that blonde I tried to pick up at Smålands nation the other night, perhaps there is something to be learned here.
For the purposes vocabulary and an analytical framework, the Ladder Theory, (however silly it may be) will serve. When combined with the predictive and explanatory powers of neorealist international relations theory, the two create a highly entertaining tool for explaining why people insist on doing stupid things in relationships.
For instance (and I'm not going to list every possible example--think of them yourselves, you lazy hobos), take relationships in which one stronger, more independent and mature individual supports a passive-aggressive significant other. According to the Ladder Theory, it's because the one is higher on their partner's ladder than the other, and a ladder disparity results in which one gives and the other takes. It's perfectly analgous to IR, in which it can be advantageous to be the weaker partner in an alliance, as one can then threaten to collapse without constant support and concessions. It's just like the Americans propping up the Saudi Royal family, man! It's brilliant.
Or take the Girls-Don't-Fucking-Answer phenomenon (hereafter GDFA). This is when you meet some nice girl who seems receptive and you obtain some way of contacting her (address, email, phone number, Myspace, Facebook, dead cat nailed to the door, whatever the hell you like). You wait the requisite amount of time (in the Bismarckian fashion, to extend the metaphor) and then attempt to contact this girl. You have incontrovertible proof that she has received the message, but she doesn't respond. Maybe she forgot? Maybe something terrible has happened and she's been kidnapped by Basque separatists? You wait a while and try again. Nothing. You go, "What the hell, man?" and give up. How can this be explained?
Well, easily. The girl giving you her number is like Bismarck publishing the Ems Dispatch, thereby provoking you (the Second Empire) into offensive action, thinking it justified. Your attempt to contact her is every offensive ever undertaken under false pretenses. It can end one of two ways: with a successful blitzkreig (thereby conquering Poland or attaining nookie) or with her avoidance of open contact, and resultant imperial overstretch and eventual collapse on your part. Sort of a Napoleon in Russia deal.
How is this to be avoided? Well, it can't. We exist in an anarchic system, and no one can ever be certain of anyone else's intentions. Until some all-powerful Dating Allocation Bureau is established, (slightly more likely than world federalism, I think) the pattern will repeat itself ad nauseum. Just like war!
What do you guys think, should I get out more?
If, as Morgenthau and Niebuhr proposed, states behave in a manner based in and parallel to basic human nature, then it stands to reason that the converse should be true: that individual human beings in a similar environment will behave in generally the same manner as sovereign states. Since diplomatic relations between states exist in an anarchic system and since individuals engaging in interpersonal relationships likewise exist in an anarchic system, we should be able to assume this commonality of behavior exists. And since the actions of, say, Austria from 1848-1866 are much more heavily documented, analyzed, and explained than the behavior of, say, that blonde I tried to pick up at Smålands nation the other night, perhaps there is something to be learned here.
For the purposes vocabulary and an analytical framework, the Ladder Theory, (however silly it may be) will serve. When combined with the predictive and explanatory powers of neorealist international relations theory, the two create a highly entertaining tool for explaining why people insist on doing stupid things in relationships.
For instance (and I'm not going to list every possible example--think of them yourselves, you lazy hobos), take relationships in which one stronger, more independent and mature individual supports a passive-aggressive significant other. According to the Ladder Theory, it's because the one is higher on their partner's ladder than the other, and a ladder disparity results in which one gives and the other takes. It's perfectly analgous to IR, in which it can be advantageous to be the weaker partner in an alliance, as one can then threaten to collapse without constant support and concessions. It's just like the Americans propping up the Saudi Royal family, man! It's brilliant.
Or take the Girls-Don't-Fucking-Answer phenomenon (hereafter GDFA). This is when you meet some nice girl who seems receptive and you obtain some way of contacting her (address, email, phone number, Myspace, Facebook, dead cat nailed to the door, whatever the hell you like). You wait the requisite amount of time (in the Bismarckian fashion, to extend the metaphor) and then attempt to contact this girl. You have incontrovertible proof that she has received the message, but she doesn't respond. Maybe she forgot? Maybe something terrible has happened and she's been kidnapped by Basque separatists? You wait a while and try again. Nothing. You go, "What the hell, man?" and give up. How can this be explained?
Well, easily. The girl giving you her number is like Bismarck publishing the Ems Dispatch, thereby provoking you (the Second Empire) into offensive action, thinking it justified. Your attempt to contact her is every offensive ever undertaken under false pretenses. It can end one of two ways: with a successful blitzkreig (thereby conquering Poland or attaining nookie) or with her avoidance of open contact, and resultant imperial overstretch and eventual collapse on your part. Sort of a Napoleon in Russia deal.
How is this to be avoided? Well, it can't. We exist in an anarchic system, and no one can ever be certain of anyone else's intentions. Until some all-powerful Dating Allocation Bureau is established, (slightly more likely than world federalism, I think) the pattern will repeat itself ad nauseum. Just like war!
What do you guys think, should I get out more?
posted by Eccarius | 6:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home