Essay II: International Relations 1 Leila Swan (3 E-5)

Essay II: The Geopolitics of Emotions. What do you think about the theory contained in the article, the geopolitics of emotions? Do you think that such reasoning would have existed prior to September 11th, or do you think it only came about as a result of this? Could you explain what happened in France last week through this article? *** Upon the lecture of Dominique Mosis text, The Geopolitics of Emotion, one is pleasantly surprised by the possibility of affecting global affairs through ones emotions. When one thinks of emotions, happiness, sadness, anger come to mind; yet in Mosis fragment, one word strikes out: confidence. Dominique Mosis theory is plausible; it optimistically puts world affairs into a historicalpolitical timeline whereupon each era is characterised by an influence or power that has stood out. For example, whereby the twentieth century could well be known as the American century or western century, perhaps the twenty first century will be Asias chance to shine. Mosis underlying theory is that the evolution of the world and its consequent chapters or eras can be traced back to the emotions behind them, namely three in particular: fear, hope and humiliation, which of course, all culminate in confidence. Mosi quotes many famous thinkers and authors, yet one phrase especially strikes out; Churchill one said that never had so few been able to do so much to harm so many. Although this phrase was coined in the era of the Second World War, it is perfectly applicable to modern day events, and the globalized form they have taken. September 11th is considered by many to be one of historys most recognized and tragic events, due in great part to its lack of historic precedence; never before had an attack of such magnitude and technological advance taken place, and on such a global platform. It is as of this moment that many began to question the western values regarding Democracy and the effects of this new globalized world. Many associate globalization with Americanism, or the expansion of the American ideal, yet this is too great a generalization. Globalization is all around us, its in our mobile telephones, in our 24/7 access to masses of information, its in the products we consume, the mail we send, the classes we take at school; in the words of Thomas Friedman, the world is now flat. When Dominique Mosi then claims that our emotions have aided this flattening of the world, many would falter, yet his arguments have validity. A nation reflects its feelings through many different factors: art, architecture, sport, etc; these feelings are then portrayed and viewed by others, because in reality politics is a reflection of the people that conform the country. Mosi cites Purcell as the ambassador of post industrial revolution Great Britain or Dutch art during their epitome, but did these feelings of confidence metamorphose into hope? Nelson Mandela always claims that rugby was one of the key factors in the 1

end of Apartheid in South Africa, as the feelings of hope and victory unified the people and gave them a shared bond. This is what I believe Mosi tries to epitomise when he speaks of hope as one of the key factors in geopolitics. Another essential point in Mosis theory is the effect of fear. One of the many issues currently afflicting man today is identity. It is almost a paradox when you see the evolution of conflict, how it has evolved from being on a global international scale to interior civil wars. These internal wars are being brought about by the fear of the loss of ones identity. Think of Sudan and South Sudan, Russia and the Caucases, Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia, Serbia and Montenegro All these conflicts arise from the fear of not belonging, of not having a personal identity. This stems from globalization also. Fifty years ago, one had no doubt as to whom were the players in global affairs, what side one was on, or even where one was from; the borders were clearly defined, and each country unto ones own. Yet contemporary affairs have proved that this is no longer the case, the borders between countries are blurred, the term global citizen or European citizen are being used more and more frequently, and cultural customs are gradually getting lost. This is causing fear amongst people who do not want to lose their identity; they do not want to get lost in the mass of seven billion people that currently conform our world. It is these new fears and emotions that are sculpting our new era; the emotions have changed, and therefore so has the political chapter. Emotions are what mobilize people, this is what Mosi is trying to portray: man is moved by how he feels, and therefore politics is motorized by mans emotions also. The third point that Mosi emphasizes is Humiliation. To me, this is one of the keys to human behaviour, even more so in the political ambit. Humiliation is an emotion that provokes different behaviours from people according to their personality, in some it causes anger, in others sadness and reclusion, and in others it spurs them on to achieve greater things. The most general result of humiliation in global affairs appears to be anger and revenge, as seen in such heightened and well-known conflicts as Israel-Palestine, Germany in the Second World War or India-Pakistan. Often humiliation comes about from a minor offence, and gradually escalates onto mass global conflicts, which are often irreparable. In this sense, the link between humiliation and confidence is more easily visible: humiliation is brought about by the lack of confidence in ones self which has been created by a certain action or offence, or it can be the clear conviction or confidence in that one has been wronged and therefore humiliated. Either way the link is existent. Yet how has humiliation shaped globalization? Mosi explains this doubt eloquently: through escalation. As mentioned supra, humiliation more often than not brings about an almost excessive amount of violence, generally in the shape of terrorist movements or wars. Whereas one hundred years ago wars on an international landscape were improbably, costly and difficult, nowadays they can be brought about in a minute, due to the increased conception of ones are of influence, for lack of a better term. Weapons are bought in one country, made in another and used by a third; and the goings on are documented all over the world, to the knowledge of all those with access to the media. Furthermore, humiliation is also used as a political tool with which to mobilize the masses, as are the other emotions. Emotions are very powerful

Essay II: International Relations 3 Leila Swan (3 E-5)

elements, which used cleverly by the political elite can turn into political conflict. It can turn whole cultures against each other, see the Middle East and the (majority of the) West. A famous New York Times article once ran with the headline All Muslims are terrorists, except for the 99,6%, thus joking about the biased political perceptions people have due to having their emotions used in global affairs. It seems Dominique Mosi aims to make us question ourselves with this article, then. Are our emotions a political tool used to manoeuvre global affairs? With this knowledge in hand, and objectively looking at contemporary international conflicts, one could almost affirm this suggestion. With regard to the second question posed, pertaining to September 11th and its relevance in this theory. One cannot doubt that it was one of the most tragic and evil attacks on humanity in our history, and yet, the aftermath is often overlooked. The war on Afghanistan, and then a posteriori on Iraq, seems to fit in with my question. Were peoples emotions exploited in order to begin a war with countrys that werent completely justified? There are many who would quickly affirm this question and go on to severely criticize the sheep-like tendencies of the uninformed public; yet, having all this information and news to hand, are we really uninformed, or misinformed? Here we have yet another of the effects of Globalization: excess. There are probably thousands of media communicators all transmitting international affairs constantly, but from what perspective? It is certain that the Israel-Palestine conflict recounted from a Jewish newspaper is never going to be biased, but neither is the Palestinian. But what of the American broadcasters, or the European, or even the Chinese? This would be to delve too deep into the strategic manoeuvring of the international players. But the idea is there, could it be that in this huge globalized world, the truth is hidden under layers of strategy and manipulation? And digging a little further, one could conclude that strategy and manipulation stem from emotions of fear, hope and humiliation. Dominique Mosis theory is clear: all conflict can be broken down and traced back to a set of emotions that set them off. But is this an effect of politics or globalization, and when did it come about? According to Mosi this has been a perennial element in international affairs, and yet these ideas only really started to circulate in the post 9/11 era. Were they brought about by that tragic episode? In a way I believe that emotions have always interfered in conflict, think of the Wars in the Middle Ages brought about by feuds between the Lords and Monarchies, to current affairs such as the humiliation and fear between Israel and Palestine: and yet people only really began to question the motives behind political action after 9/11. This recent questioning has been provoked by globalization. Globalization has made transmission of ideas possible; now, when one thinks something, one can pass that idea on to anyone, anywhere, thus facilitating the circulation of ideas, and consequently improvement. When one began to question, all began to question. Globalization has provoked many things, but one of them has been improvement; they say knowledge is power, and with all the tools in our hands, man owns knowledge. But what of the increase in violence which globalization has brought with it? With knowledge comes power, but also comes influence. Globalization has 3

openened the world up, ideas, cults and movements now have a larger audience. Think of Kony 2012 and the mass cult it has created, or even the enormous extension of some religions and sects in the last decades. With mass influence, also comes mass following, and what culminates in fanaticisim. Globalization is known to have provoked a large increase in fanaticisim. In my opinion this can be traced back to the lack of identity that globalization has given rise to, so when the opportunity arises to belong to a movement or ideology, some grasp it with both hands and become the most participative member of said group, consequently promoting fanaticism. Such is the case for example with the events of last week in France. Fanaticism is made up of emotions: fear of being alone with no identity, hope of contributing and being a part of something big, and humiliation of having nothing else to fall back on; this is what happened to Mohamed Merah. Fanaticism takes control of ones being, and twists morale, transforming ideals and actions into good and beneficial deeds. Globalization has aided this in that anyone, anywhere can be fanaticized and a fanatic, thus moving terror onto a global scale. Fear is a very powerful emotion, and unless properly guarded, can turn into very dangerous things. According to the Oxford dictionary, emotions are strong feelings deriving from ones circumstances, mood or relationship with others. Emotions are strong factors, and are in essence, the motor behind human behaviour, being a great influence therefore on politics, which is by definition the government of the people. Dominique Mosis beautiful text on how said emotions impact global affairs shows the subjective side in interpreting the world and its behaviour, and enlightens the reader with a cyclic and slightly complex view on this. Man is made up of all sorts of complicated emotions which he channels into his relations with his contemporaries, therefore fuelling conflicts with a subjective point of view, and transforming world events into a much more familiar and human process. The world is made of people and people are made of emotions, its only logical for the world to function on emotions.