Quantum theory offers no insight into reducing international violence -its feel good nonsense

(Andrew W., PoliSci@Madison, Our place in the universe: Alexander Wendt and

quantum mechanics International Theory (2022), 14 (1), 130–145 doi:10.1017/S1752971921000063)

The biggest and strangest lacuna in the book is any discussion of conflict. Even more so than in Wendt’s previous work, the entire apparatus of the argument is brought to bear to explain ostensibly good things: freedom, communication, understanding, cooperation, collective action, and so on. Wendt does not even mention the existence of more negative outcomes. Violence, war, predation, exploitation, hate, hostility, terrorism, conflict, prejudice, and genocide are not to be found in the index. This is a very odd gap in a book by an International Relations scholar that purports to better explain social life. If we study International Relations in order to understand it and hopefully to make things better, here we have no sense of what we need to understand, and what there is to make better. Furthermore, Wendt’s organic conception of the state comports very well with a traditional state activity, namely fighting wars with each other to establish dominance and amass greater territory. He is eager to disavow Fascism, but why not at least mention war? It is as well that the book makes no mention of conflict, as the theory offers no prospect for better explaining it than conventional approaches. The upshot of the theory is that humans are freer, smarter, more understanding of each other, and more capable of joint action than we realize if we remain stuck in the classical framework. How then do we explain the numerous instances in which they are intellectually hobbled, hidebound, suspicious, tone deaf, oblivious to the feelings of others, careless about inflicting pain, and hateful of those deemed different from themselves? How do we explain millennia of war and the existence of nuclear arsenals sufficient to wipe out civilization? To put it in social science 101 terms, a theory of outcome A is no good unless it can also predict outcome not A. Dependent variables must vary. Intriguingly, in this context, Wendt borrows Leibnitz’s term, ‘monads’, to label his quantum mechanical interpretation of human beings.29 Liebnitz, when he wasn’t inventing calculus, was a prominent theodicist, who developed a complex defense of God from the problem of evil. He is (in)famous for his argument that the world, although seemingly flawed, is the best that it can possibly be, so we should not blame God for any human suffering in it. Voltaire makes merciless fun of Leibnitz in Candide in the character of Dr Pangloss, who spouts optimistic nonsense in the face of heartbreaking, inexplicable misery. Wendt’s neo-Leibnitzian argument that we are quantum monads may dethrone God, but by ignoring conflict it would have us believe that we are angels. To more cynical eyes, the entire enterprise seems more than a touch Panglossian.