International Politics at the Brain's Edge: Social Neuroscience and a New “Via Media”

Abstract

Social neuroscience has seen a profound rise in other social science disciplines, such as economics, yet there has been relatively little systematic analysis of the usefulness of social neuroscience for international relations and the study of world politics. This article suggests that while there are many potential explanations for why this might be the case, one important barrier to adopting neuroscience may be our metaphysical assumptions and philosophical wagers. I suggest that if all politics is rooted in the brain, then two distinct arguments regarding agent‐structure are plausible. One argument suggests that structure becomes redundant once the brain is accounted for; the other suggests that the brain simply drops out as epiphenomenal. After all, if all politics is reflected in the brain, then the brain itself is less interesting than the structure being reflected. These wagers ultimately relate to positions we take on the mind–body problem and well‐known ideational‐material divide. New research in neuroscience and philosophy of mind suggests that this binary distinction can be overcome, suggesting a new “via media” between ideas and material that may offer significant promise for both theory and practice.

Social bonding in diplomacy

“…While the intuition that individuals and interpersonal interactions among leaders, diplomats, and policymakers can make quite a difference to political outcomes is hardly a new insight in the field of IR, receiving significant attention in diplomatic studies, foreign policy analysis, practice theory, and decision-making analysis through much of the 20 th century (Nicolson 1939; Rosenau 1966; Derian 1987; Berridge 1995; Jönsson and Hall 2005; Sharp 2009; Pouliot 2010; 2016; Adler and Pouliot 2011; Rathbun 2014; Sending, Pouliot, and Neumann 2015; Trager 2017), the systematic and interdisciplinary study of the effects of interpersonal interactions by political scientists is relatively recent 6 . For example, the move to incorporate findings from psychology and social neuroscience as a way to uncover the micro-foundations of political interaction and causal mechanisms of decision-making has lagged behind other disciplines, such as economics, which has long been interested in using the brain to identify mechanisms (Holmes 2014; Kertzer and Tingley 2018).…”

Neuro-Problems: Knowing Politics Through the Brain

“…The hitherto underwhelming response of the political science community has caused some bewilderment amongst neuropolitics researchers. For example, Holmes (2014) addresses the "puzzle" of why political science in general, and international relations in particular, have been so reluctant to adopt neuroscientific methods and findings, compared to the field of economics. He argues:…”

Acting Rationally Without Really Thinking: The Logic of Rational Intuitionism for International Relations Theory

“…First, as others have argued, the use of neuroscience findings in IR does not imply that neurons and chemicals can explain all aspects of political behavior (Holmes ). Indeed, the principle of “multiple determinism,” which holds that the causes of political behavior exist at many levels—from the international system all the way down to neural networks (Cacioppo and Decety )—implies such an approach.…”