Political mind and its implication for geopolitics

Wulf Lapins

This article is understood as an interdisciplinary and multi-dimensional analysis of politics where at first general statements on the category „mind“, and further on, „political mind“ are given in a theoretical introduction with continental-European sources. In the following case-analytical part of this essay, the political mind and its possible implications for geopolitics concerning „Brexit” and „North-Korean nuclear armament” are investigated by looking at the political dimension „policy/political contents” as well as at „politics/political processes”.

The interests and political dynamism of states are subjects under investigation of different political-scientific theories of international relationships, such as those of Neoliberalism/Liberal Intergovernmentalism, of interdependency and of Constructivism. The geopolitical addressing of the category of political mind especially focusses on the political-scientific theory of Realism/Neorealism. In the mid-1960ies already, Martin Wight, a well-known British analyst of international politics of that time, presented a critical analysis of the narrowness of the efficiency of the particular theories of international relationships. His compatriot Hedley Bull, too, defined his position that, due to the complex heterogeneity and diversity of the political behaviour of the actors as well as state-political procedures, international relationships do not allow any formation of valid scientific theories. Both of them, therefore, question theory-analogue political procedures and furthermore rather reclaim merely historical constellations. In the light of the present upheavals in the international regulatory structures, the author defines his position that all political-scientific theories ought to pass through difficult stress tests, especially if they are recommended as a mirror for applied consulting for politics.

To sum up, one has to notice that many of the aspects of forming and fashioning political mind, which are elaborated on or mentioned in the theoretical part, probably can also be found in political practice. The array of instruments of political-scientific research, however, has not been filled sufficiently for giving valid empirical objective evidence for this. This holds also true for the two case analyses „Brexit” and „North-Korean nuclear armament”.