The Constructive Role of Emotions - Essay Example

?Sasley, B.E. . Theorizing s’ emotions. International Studies Review, 13, 452-476. The aim of this research has been to elaborate further on the past literature over the constructive role of emotions for finding the possibility of theorising the emotions of states on the wider global scale. Before evaluation of Sasley’s attempt at theorising states’ emotions, it is pertinent to share that researchers are not unanimous over the connection between method and theory, particularly in the context of evaluating an article on successfully employing the qualitative methods of research concerning a theory of human emotions that demands to be analysed with transparency. It is argued that traits of qualitative methods such as analysis of the opinion and behaviour of the stakeholders are the best and genuine method to derive conclusions. Anthropologists and sociologists view theory and method as the same. Procedures may be different but qualitatively, both are inseparable (Obermeyer, 1997). A thorough reading of the article forms the opinion that Sasley has not been successful in tracing a theory out of the states’ emotions in the sense that theorising is different from method although Sasley has made use of qualitative methods of research comprehensively in proving his claim to theorising of states’ emotions. Sasley has used the tool of literature review too extensively from the available research. Sasley has dwelt too much on quoting examples of Israel and Palestinian state while describing their religious and political ideologies impacting the emotions of these states in IR. Sasley should have taken a wider approach by researching similar issues in far-off lands in Asia and other regions. Empirical data is used very rarely by quoting Ben Meir and Bagno-Moldavsky over Jews-Israelis and Palestinians. He could have used various other countries as stakeholders other than Egypt for explaining emotions of its people for Israelis (p. 466). Sasley has used only popular examples of the current President of America, Barak Obama’s dealing with the situation in the region in relation to Ex-President George Bush, for delineating how change in leadership affects emotions, as state leaders are the legal spokespersons of their populations. It becomes an easy way to prove what Sasley wants to. Had he taken some less popular leading political examples, such as Pakistan’s political leadership, things would have been difficult to prove over the emotion quotient (p. 469). Had the example of Pakistan been used over how emotions play a least possible role in impacting the foreign policy of a country like Pakistan, it would have lessened the impact of emotions on a country’s relations with neighbouring as well as friend and enemy states. It would have falsified the notion that a country like America takes political decisions on the emotional ground. Nothing can be more unrealistic than this. Emotions come out only when patriotically aroused as in the aftermath of 9/11 the political leadership and the masses of America became united in impressing the foreign policy over Afghanistan and Iraq because of patriotic emotions only. Sasley has offered an explanatory view of various observations, focusing more on categories’ analysis than case discussions. Had he taken two-three contrasting case studies on the topic, his claims to theorising states’ emotions could not have stood steadfast. The researcher has stayed away from making principles from the analysis. Extensive use of comparison and contrast of the discussed content is made later. Only selective examples have been made taken to prove the possibility of a method or theory (Flick, 2009). Saying that emotions play a leading role in international relations is far from truth, as emotions do not matter at all in global relations. Sasley offers two global examples of group reactions to prove that whether monarchies or democracies, peoples and governments react as if they are an entity. The first example is related to the collective reaction of Muslim community worldwide over the publication of a Danish cartoon, showing Prophet Muhammad, which was against the Muslim view of Islam (p. 452). The second example selected by Sasley describes the American national awakening over the extremist attack of September 11, taking it as an attack on the whole of America. These two examples are specific, not general. The Muslim religion and community worldwide is synonymous with fundamentalist outlook overpowering the softer side of Islam. The other example of the surcharging of American emotions is because of patriotism, not otherwise. It seems that the author has tried to generalise the emotional quotient. Notice needs to be taken of the fact that Islam has been an aggressive religion. The followers of Islam react sharply to any critical or less critical issue. The same can not be blatantly true for other religions, such as pictures of Hindu Gods and Goddesses have been used in disrespectful way but no global level repercussions were heard against the people responsible for it. Actually, emotions are used for getting political edge (p. 452). We can not deny collective emotional outbursts at certain local, national and global platforms but saying that in liberal democracies, the behaviour of government bodies and groups is similar to that of absolutist kings, for example, the extremist attack of 26/11/2008 on Mumbai, killing 166 innocent people created worldwide group responses but democratic norms have come in the way of punishing the alive imprisoned extremist, Ajmal Kasab, thus weakening the claim that a state as powerful as India represents the emotions of its people, as it has been unable to deliver the death sentence to Ajmal Kasab. Thus, the viewpoints of International Relations scholars regarding the identification process of the state with its people carry value, as depending on the action taking approach of various governments. A lot depends on the physical and mental prowess of the governments concerned to nip the evil in the bud at the earliest, as the US government and military action against the Al Qaeda leader hiding in Pakistan proved that it can go to any extent to punish them. Thus, the author’s attempt at proving his point does not ask or reply to other globally relevant issues related to the theory of state emotions. Sasley is only ironically right when pointing out the gap between theorising of emotions in IR and actual role-play of emotions in structuring foreign policy of a country although one can see the work of hard core political diplomacy in it. Sasley is wrong in finding a causal relationship between emotions and making of a foreign policy at a relatively wider usability level because no country can put its national interests on risk by getting emotionally blackmailed (p. 453). Coming to emerging literature on the research on emotions, the author is right in capturing the limited scope of emotions in literature, which becomes a hurdle in the way of relatively greater in-depth analysis and application of emotions not only on individuals but groups as well to relate and position and rank themselves in their surroundings (p. 453). Although examples have been elaborately used but general state level issues can not be categorised, as requiring explicit theorising of state’s emotions. Sasley proves this by giving two examples, such as signing of a climate change treaty by Washington or the US attack on Iraq. Author’s saying that such decisions do not call for the role of emotions but the two examples given by Sasley need to be separated for the role of emotions. The decision to attack Iraq is based on becoming strategically powerful in the region; emotions do not interfere at all in such matters. So, role of emotions in the latter example can be negated totally. Sasley is right only in a limited way regarding the role of political leaders. Some political leaders in the history had charismatic personalities that changed the path of history. Emotions cannot be credited for what charismatic leaders accomplished or lost ground. Could Mahatama Gandhi change the course of history happening in the division of India in 1947? President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran took a confrontationist approach while dealing with the West. The author may desire what should have happened but reality is that no broader theories of emotions can be relevant in the larger context of IR (pp. 453-454). Devising a third method by Sasley may seem a logical progression of taking the state as a group and adhering to internal procedures for evoking cognitive and emotional responses that decide the behaviour of state but it proves at the same time that the fist two methods have not been effective. Nevertheless, the third method recurrent use of examples in the literature as giving reference to the common method in organisational theory for research on emotions for highlighting the contribution of social psychologists in conducting research on groups as psychological procedure (p. 454). When it comes to September 11 terrorist attack an opposing view of Fattah and Fierke, defining emotions as “socially meaningful expressions, which depend on shared customs, uses and institutions,’’ seems more relevant and nearer to truth (Fattah and Fierke, 2009, p. 70)). Sasley quotes Jack Hymns on the issue of nuclear proliferation on how leaders’ reactions link the issues to national identity, compelling future leaders to adhere to the group emotions irrespective of the absence or presence of those leaders who took bold historical decisions but here he is sharing the emotions of politically and militarily weak nations, bleeding from the wounds of nuclear attack. Strong states’ emotions always remain hidden (p. 455). After reading the literature review on group emotions, one feels that Sasley has missed on some very relevant political examples of positive and negative emotions of countries and their peoples, such as in the context of indo-Pak emotionally positive but politically and militarily negative relations. The basis of enmity between both the countries was partition. It led to the ever-burning issue of independent Kashmir, which was agreed to be settled through the UN by the first Prime Minister of India, Jawahar Lal Nehru. Since then both the countries have seen three wars on their physical borders. Both the countries present a brilliant example of the culmination of both positive and negative group emotions time and again without achieving any concrete peaceful outcome. In this case positive emotions have also interfered to bring the situation under control through regular but temporary policy shift to improve bilateral relations, standing always on the risk from the Islamist extremists waging an open war from the safe Pakistani haven against India. Sasley’s claim to broader group level does not hold sense in the absence of examples of Asian countries in literature review (p. 456). While using the qualitative research tool of comparison in describing the cohabitation with other groups in society that makes social identity meaningful, it brings the discussion on the fore over the presence of different related and unrelated groups bringing into focus the importance of categories to base the self-categorisation theory (SCT). In the desire to show the significance of the SIT and SCT and prominence of categorisation, the research misses on relevant and detailed case studies. The literature review has been unnecessarily too lengthy. Had some space been given to case studies for projecting the role of theorising, it would have added more clarity and focus to the research. Overall, while reading the text on theorising about group emotions, one finds lack of pertinent and distanced examples for a student of the subject to easily grasp the topic. Somewhere the topic has become too complex for the layman to comprehend how individuality of a person gets group identification without loosing the self; one finds relevant examples could have added glam to the text otherwise. Comparison of emotions with that of a thief who would not dare to steal if he knows that the stolen item can create the risk of tracing the thief by the owner of the item, as given by Frank (1993)) does not serve the purpose. On the other hand, another aspect of emotions for describing how a bonding can be created for a cause among the group members, which finally leads to group behaviour, as the experience of an event reveals and impresses upon the group member’s behaviour, is okay only to the level of a group. When it comes to a state’s behaviour, the comparison seems baseless because it is childish to compare groups with states’ behaviour and policies (p. 459). Sasley has taken the research work accomplished earlier a step ahead through another qualitative method of experimentation, which has helped the author in arguing for his hypothesis that states have emotions but his arguments are based more on national symbols, as is clear from the experiments with photographs of the White House for American identity and campus buildings for the IU identity reinforcing the fact that singular emotions become group emotions, much to the surprise of control groups. This journey of emotions from singular to group emotions seems logical but taking this journey to the state level is very unconvincing. Researchers have limited themselves to groups only but it seems that Sasley is taking the issues of groups and inter-groups to the next level of states without substantial ground for it (460). For explaining the “chronic and long lasting” in-group identification, the example of a woman, working for women welfare is given to prove that group emotions are above individual emotions in a given situation but state is not a group; it is an autonomous region of physical boundaries existing in the harsh political realities of grouping with one another for their economic, social and political interests; it is a compulsion otherwise weaker states’ interests are at the risk of being compromised by strong ones (p. 461). Examples of various countries given by Sasley by comparing them to show the change in emotions such as of Holland and Belgium for explaining fear element over September 11 to prove that level of inter-group identity in an in-group differs based on the pertinence of emotions to that inter-group points towards the cause of change, which should be given importance. Emotions are different because different countries are affected differently and therefore, react differently. Developing a theory out of it is just going too far, which is not right (p. 463). Sasley’s qualitative research work slowly and steadily circumvents to the theory aspect of states’ emotions by categorising the in-groups comprising Americans, Europeans, Westerners in relation to the Arab identity to describe how fear element varied with each in-group country. All his arguments for finding emotions, behaviour and elements such as fear to identify the presence of “an intervening causal mechanism” do not convince to be applicable to political geographies, i.e. states (p. 466). One can see that the research work accomplished by Sasley is based on quality research on the given topic, leaving no stone unturned in proving the importance of emotions in states’ relations but the topic and the central issue cannot be proved just through qualitative research parameters. Overall, there should be no doubt over the author’s attempt to prove his case but the other side of the picture is missing for politics does not allow states to play emotions as politics is the game of strategic realities and interests. References Flick, U., 2009. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Available from: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=sFv1oWX2DoEC&dq=sample+constructive+critique+based+on+qualitative+research+methods+in+history+and+political+science&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s [accessed 19 November 2012]. Obermeyer, C.M., 1997. Qualitative methods: a key to a better understanding of demographic behavior? Population and Development Review, 23 (4), pp. 813-818. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2137381 [accessed 19 November 2012]. Sasley, B.E., 2011. Theorizing states’ emotions. International Studies Review, 13, 452–476. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2486.2011.01049.x Read More