Texts and blog post curated by Tomi Kristeri
The choice of these articles stems from a desire to broaden the discussion on the motivations for action within IR by incorporating perspectives that highlight love as a significant force in global politics. Together, these articles invite a closer look at love as an alternative analytical lens, either as a counter force to power or as a form of power in its own right.
Polinder’s article, recognized with the 2024 E-International Relations Article Award, advocates for a paradigm shift from a fear-based to a love-based analysis of international politics. The article advocates reimagining international politics through a lens of love (empathy, cooperation, solidarity) to address global challenges like conflict and climate change. It critiques traditional IR theories for their prioritization of power and fear over positive emotions that often drive human action.
Hartnett’s article critically examines the role of love in IR scholarship, specifically in classical realism. It contends that love has been used in producing order by constituting community, legitimating coercion and empowering action. Hartnett explores the thinking of Alfred Zimmern, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hans Morgenthau as examples of three ideal typical – Hegelian, Augustinian and Nietzschean – logics of how love has been understood in IR.
During our discussion, participants expressed both interest and skepticism regarding the practicality of a love-centered approach in global politics. Many noted that fear is frequently utilized to control populations, as it is a highly primal and immediate emotion. The group also debated whether love, often perceived as a personal and intimate emotion, could be effectively scaled to the level of international relations.
Many noted that fear is frequently utilized to control populations, as it is a highly primal and immediate emotion. The group also debated whether love, often perceived as a personal and intimate emotion, could be effectively scaled to the level of international relations.
Participants noted that the three theorists discussed by Hartnett—Zimmern, Niebuhr, and Morgenthau—are all European or American men. This sparked a conversation about the Eurocentrism and the lack other perspectives such as Gandhi and Tolstoi (both of whom have been previously discussed by Hartnett). Some posited that Hartnett’s focus on these canonical figures could serve to highlight the multidimensionality of realist thought, and it might even be an intentional tactic to bring new eyes on more heterodox ideas.
Related to this, the group discussed the relevance of revisiting classical realist thinkers in contemporary IR, questioning the value of engaging with the ideas of “old white men”. Some suggested that the field might be seeking to reconnect with its roots amidst increasing fragmentation and that these foundational theories could still offer valuable insights.
A segment of the discussion centered on the scientific validity of incorporating love into IR analysis. The challenges of operationalizing and empirically testing concepts like love within the field were brought up. Concerns were also raised about the lack of clear definitions and methodological approaches, with some suggesting that without rigorous frameworks, the integration of love might remain speculative.
Some in the group pointed out that Hartnett’s article does not sufficiently engage with existing IR literature on emotions and affect. Given the thematic overlap, integrating insights from this literature could have enriched the analysis.
Sources
Polinder, S. (2024). ‘Through the Eyes of Love’: Looking at International Politics Differently. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2024/09/10/through-the-eyes-of-love-looking-at-international-politics-differently/
Hartnett, L. (2024). How love orders: an engagement with disciplinary International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 30(1), 203-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661231190238
