Analyzing Misperceptions in International Relations
I used Dr. Stangelove and Thirteen Days along with academic writings to try and analyze why misperceptions form in IR and how to avoid them.
Misperceptions throughout the course of history have always been apparent. From relationships as trivial as a common friendship to international relations between countries with a large influence in the global political climate, perception shapes the way we act. When discussing misperceptions and how they come about when interacting with another state, I studied ideas of deterrence and how they shaped the Cold War. When taking into account important information from different political ideologies, as well as ideas from readings and movies I have studied, I have attempted to foster a complete understanding of how misperceptions come about as well as how misperceiving one’s seen enemy or competitor, can change a state’s own political agenda.
Oliver Wendell Holmes once remarket “In any arguments between two persons six persons are involved: the two as they actually are, the two as they see themselves, and the two as seen by each other” (Lauren). Knowing this is essential to understanding how perceptions formulate. Not only is it important to convey a message clearly, but also it is equally important to convey it with confidence and present it in a way that the receiver will find believable. This confidence could sometimes be misinterpreted, but if your pattern of confident continues and does not deviate you will be considered believable more times than not.
When nations attempt to have relationships with one another one of the countries involved is bound to misperceive the other if there is any shrivel of doubt or mistrust. During World War I, many misperceptions combined with how countries reacted due to their misperceptions snowballed into Earth’s First World War. So many wars throughout history in addition to WWI can be attributed to a state’s fear of another state because of their political moves to empower themselves. In retaliation, a competing state will also empower themselves which than can be misperceived as a method of intimidation to the first state, when in reality it is just the second hypothetical state’s way of looking out for themselves and their own sovereignty. States are rightly concerned with their own personal security first. So when a State’s security is threatened they are within their own morals to respond in an aggressive way. It’s human nature really, fight or flight, survival of the fittest.
The Cold War between the United States and Russia is the prime example of misperceptions in international relations. In a sense, the Cold War started when Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 when Lenin announced there would always be hostility between the capitalistic West and communistic Soviet Union. But the grand beginning of the hatred and mistrust between the capitalistic West and the Soviet Union emerged at the end of WWII once military victory eliminated the threat of a common enemy. The Soviets differed with the US, Britain, and France about who should control which parts of Europe. Soviets also grew deeply suspicious about the United States and the information it held on weapons of mass destruction (Lauren). The mistrust between the United States and Russia came about when the two countries were focused on self-gain instead of self-protection. When fighting a common enemy it is easy to trust. But once that task is taken care of, intentions tend to differ. Therefore it is only natural to question what a foreign state might be up to especially when it is known that their values do not line up the same with your own.
When another person’s values differ from your own you can approach a situation in a multitude of ways. You will most likely react in a way similar to your role models as those are the people you have seen react. Those you know and admire shape your values. So when interacting with a person who has a different background, judgments tend to form. You are inclined to believe that your way of thinking is right and theirs is wrong. You think this because you hold those who you have learned from in such high regard, that everything they have ever taught you is right. That is why we perceive those from other backgrounds who’s values differ from the ones you have formulated, as wrong, evil, combative, etc. Perception without perspective can make or break relationships.
The movie Dr. Strangelove is a satire about the Cold War. Despite its clearly far-fetched humorous nature, it also acts as pedagogy for how relations between US and Russia might have been during the time period. Dr. Strangelove opens up with a United States general ordering a nuclear strike on Russia without Presidential consent. The whole rest of the movie is based around US and Russian communication to try and stop the nuclear strike. As the movie unfolds, the inherent mistrust of the entire United States war room is apparent. They let their perception of Russian communism and their mistrust of Russia determine their actions. The scenes of US president on the phone with Russian dictator are reminiscent of a juvenile fight between a teenage couple. The whole point of the movie is informing the public of just how complicated international relationships are. Another movie in which misperception of foreign relations is addressed is Thirteen Days.
Thirteen Days addresses the political state of the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis and how President Kennedy and his advisers very carefully walked the line between making sure Russian forces did not deliver nuclear-capable missiles to Cuba while also trying to avoid any acts of war. This movie specifically highlights how important it is to not be misperceived by the enemy. In no way did the United States or President Kennedy want to go to war. But a military blockade to Cuba is seen as an act of war. So President Kennedy and the United States military had to get creative in order to stop those missiles from arriving in Cuba, and not committing any acts of war. One can manage opposing figures misperceptions by being as clear and concise as possible. Many things, big or small, can cause misperceptions, but once something is put out in the open in international relations, it can be very hard to take back.
In international relations it is naïve to believe that a state is not looking out for its own sovereignty first and foremost. So, when a state is attempting to formulate a foreign policy it is important to try and make decisions to counteract competing states. However, it is a slippery-international-slope trying to balance looking out for one’s own sovereignty, while also trying to gain an edge on a competing state. The way nations perceive each other ultimately defines how they interact with each other. And being clear, concise, and consistent is the best way to not be misperceived by competing states.
Works Cited:
Dr. Strangelove
Lauren et al., Cold War Sept. 17
Lauren et al., Deterrence Sept. 19
Thirteen Days
