There Is No Such Thing As Society

 "There is no such thing as society" -- former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher  (Picture: AP/Wikipedia)

 
“Society was not an abstraction, separate from the men and women who composed it, but a living structure of individuals, families, neighbours (sic) and voluntary associations.“  
                                   Margaret Thatcher from “The Downing Street Years”

          Individuals play an important part in politics and international relations that is often overlooked in favor of systemic theories. The notion that great men (and women) can singularly change the world is a controversial topic in political science. Systemic theories within political science and international relations seem to be favored over psychological explanations. However, understanding individual motivation can help to understand the actions of actors. Psychological and systemic theories are not exclusive of one another; rather psychology is another useful tool.

          System models such as Alexander Wendt’s social constructivism offer frameworks in which psychology only plays a peripheral role. Mainstream systemic theories of international relations have focused on state, structure, and system centric views of the world. Wendt's 1st level/micro level analysis (the individual) is often relegated to a secondary role of "cleaning up residual variance left unexplained" (See Wendt, Alexander), or discounted all together as an explicative force. Aggregate "big picture" analyses that focus on state actors cannot be regarded as complete without consideration of individual actors. These include for example, elements such as narrative, framing, behavior, context, perception, and motivation not only within collective groups but individuals as well. States and structures are not self-contained black boxes (See “International Relations”).

          Friedrich Hayek, for example, argued that “the most enduring social institutions are shaped by spontaneous evolution, rather than by intellectual design” (See Hayek, Friedrich). State-to-state relations are ultimately composed of individuals and as such need to be recognized as a distinct "level of analysis" (See Hagan, Joe). Understanding people and what drives them is an indispensable first step to the building of a framework that correctly interprets the complexities of politics and offers enhanced explanatory power. The needs and desires of the bottom of the economic and political pyramid often exert great power on social structures at the top, so too do the individual desires and motivations of people at the top who think and act outside the box. Systemic theories do not adequately account for either.

          Analyst often focus on group psychology and only giving passing consideration to the individual. Alexander George, Janice Stein and other prominent political psychologists in the field do not expound to a great degree on the role of individuals and the shaping power that they may wield. Stein broadly discusses how the choices of leaders acting alone "can have powerful effects on a system," and how single individuals may be highlighted by collective actions and group decisions to become the guardian figure of a state but then moves on (See Stein, Janice p 293-297). Using Stalin, Hitler as examples, Hagan illustrates how the "unfettered power of a single individual" could dominate foreign policy within the Soviet Union, Germany and other totalitarian states (See Hagan, Joe p27), and uses historical examples to illustrate specific instances of an individual changing the course of foreign policy, but like most analyses goes no further in analyzing the influence that individuals can bring to bear on the state and policy.

          Perhaps it would be useful to reconsider the "Great Man Theory". Prior to the 20th century the “Great Man Theory,” namely the idea that a single individual through skill, charisma, and strength of will could make a decisive impact on history had fallen out of favor. In fact, there is a substantial body of research that is linked to the significance of the individual. Max Weber’s seminal work on the sociology of charisma and creation of charismatic authority to Eric Hoffer’s conception of the “True Believer” and cults of personality are examples.

          Individuals are important. Individuals (as opposed to agencies or collective groups) can and have made great change on the shape of world politics and the international system. Human history is the aggregate story of countless numbers of individual human lives, every construct of society and politics is at its core a creation of individuals and groups. This obvious reality is sometimes lost in the shuffle of theories and approaches. The better our understanding of the individual and his motivations, the better our understanding of the world as it exists. In sum, more emphasis should be placed on the role individuals play in understanding international relations and domestic politics.



Sources:

“Great Man Theory.” (N.D.) Wikipedia. Retrieved April 21, 2013, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/great_man_theory

Hagan, Joe. 2001. Does Decision Making Matter? Systemic Assumptions vs. Historical Reality in International Relations Theory. International Studies Review, 3(2): p.6.

Frantz, Roger and Robert Leeson. “Hayek And Behavioral Economics”. New York: New York. Palgrave Macmillan. 2013

Hoffer, Eric. "The True Beleiver: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements". New York: New York. Harper Perennial Modern Classics. 2002.

“International Relations.” (N.D.) Wikipedia. Retrieved April 21, 2013, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/international_relations

Stein, Janice Gross. "Psychological Explanations of International Conflict". In Walter Carsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons (eds.) Handbook of International Relations. New York: Sage Publications,

Thatcher, Margaret. “The Downing Street Years”. New York: New York. Harper Collins. 1993

Wendt, Alexander. "Social Theory of International Politics". Cambridge: United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press. 1999.