However, political scientists most frequently have argued that they must set aside both fortune and virtue, and instead focus on impersonal forces as the causes of international events. Their reasons for doing so fall under three rubrics. First, many political scientists contend that individuals ultimately do not matter, or at least they count for little in the major events that shape international politics. Instead they argue that the roar of the anarchic system, domestic politics, and institutional dynamics drown out the small voices of individual leaders. Second, other political scientists posit that although individuals may matter from time to time, their influence does not lend itself to the generalizations that political scientists seek. Simply put, individuals are too individualistic. Third, several leading international relations theorists have raised a number of specific objections that they argue render the study of individuals theoretically hopeless.
We believe that political scientists are simultaneously too modest and too arrogant in these claims. Too modest because political scientists need not throw up their hands and believe that they have nothing useful to say about the role of individuals in international relations. The theoretical objections raised over the years do not stand up under closer examination and should not prevent us from mining this rich ore. Too arrogant because too many political scientists imply or assert that the impersonal forces on which they focus their attention explain the vast majority of events in international relations. In so doing, they marginalize the crucial impact of individuals on war and diplomacy and neglect they extent to which social science can tease out useful generalizations regarding the role played by individuals.
It is time to rescue men and women, as individuals, from the oblivion to which political scientists have consigned them. This article is not intended as a comprehensive account of the importance of individuals——such an effort would require the work of many lifetimes——but it is intended to question scholars’ current assumptions about international politics and show the plausibility of analyzing international relations by focusing on the role of individuals.
What is the impact of individuals on international relations? What aspects of state behavior do they affect? Under what conditions are they influential? These are the questions this article seeks to answer. We contend that the goals, abilities, and foibles of individuals are crucial to the intentions, capabilities, and strategies of a state. Indeed individuals not only affect the actions of their own state but also shape the reactions of other nations, which must respond to the aspirations, abilities, and aggressiveness of foreign leaders. Of course, individuals matter more to international relations under certain circumstances. Individual personalities take on added significance when power is concentrated in the hands of a leader, when institutions are in conflict, or in times of great change. Individuals also shape many of the drivers identified by other theorists, such as the balance of power, domestic opinion, and bureaucratic politics. These paradigms suffer when individuals are ignored.
1.What is the main idea of the first paragraph?
2.What does the author mean by “the roar of the anarchic system, domestic politics, and institutional dynamics drown out the small voices of individual leaders” in the first paragraph?
3.Explain “Simply put, individuals are too individualistic” in your own words.
4.What does “this rich ore” refer to in the second paragraph?
5.Describe the major goal of the article in your own words.
