by 
The Illusions of Liberal Order: A Scientific Mirage
The Age of Discovery fueled the scientific revolution, but it was deeply intertwined with imperial ambitions. Knowledge was wielded not just through military might but also through the meticulous classifications of botanists and the precise charts of cartographers. To view science as a detached quest for universal truths, observing political realities from a distance, is to embrace a tale as mythical as any ancient creation story. Science is inherently tied to the structures of power, identity, and the historical contexts it aims to describe.
Liberal internationalism, armed with scientific rationale, believed it could export democracy and free markets as universally applicable solutions. The grim reality of this vision became apparent in places like Vietnam and Iraq, where failures are often chalked up to policy errors or a lack of understanding of nationalism and power dynamics. Yet, this critique falls short; the underlying issue was not just political miscalculation but an epistemic failure, a flawed worldview that viewed complex human societies as mere variables in a geopolitical experiment. This technocratic belief that governance could be engineered with precision mirrors a departure from genuine scientific inquiry, instead becoming a tool for a managerial elite to justify their interventions under the guise of evidence-based policy.
Realism serves as a sobering counterpoint to this idealism, emphasizing the harsh realities of power politics. The structural realist perspective depicts an anarchic world where states behave according to immutable laws of power. However, this view oversimplifies the complexity of state behavior, which is influenced by identity, memory, and emotional forces. The aspiration for predictive accuracy often clashes with the unpredictable nature of human societies, revealing a fundamental tension within the discipline.
Science aims for universal truths, while nationalism thrives on the unique and the mythic. Nations are imagined communities, powerful not because they are empirically valid but because they create narratives that bind individuals to something larger. This relationship between science and nationalism illustrates a critical truth: the human condition is not a technical problem to be solved but a story to be lived and contested. This is why the liberal wager continues to falter; the expectation that modernization would diminish particularistic passions has proven misguided. Instead, nationalism and authoritarianism have surged, exposing the flaws in the liberal model and its understanding of human motivations.
The liberal faith that scientific progress would inevitably lead to moral and political enlightenment is a narrative that history challenges. The 20th century stands as a testament to this paradox, where the same rationality that mapped the human genome also enabled atrocities like genocide. The space race, while a symbol of scientific triumph, was shadowed by the threat of nuclear annihilation, illustrating how progress and catastrophe can stem from the same ambitions.
Now, as we navigate a new century, we confront unprecedented challenges. Technologies like artificial intelligence and biotechnology blur the lines between civilian and military, public and private. The U.S.-China competition over advanced computing transcends traditional arms races, exposing the inadequacies of post-war political frameworks in managing transnational risks. Most strikingly, climate change epitomizes the irony of our age: the very industrial rationality designed to liberate humanity has destabilized the systems that sustain life, revealing the pitfalls of viewing science as a straightforward path to progress.
Science cannot be the savior or the scapegoat in the grand narrative of international relations. It is a contingent practice, capable of explaining the world but not redeeming it. Recognizing its role in politics requires a balance between technocratic triumphalism and reactionary skepticism, understanding that science is both knowledge and a source of power. The realist perspective remains relevant, but it too is just another narrative, imposing order on a world resistant to coherence.
The liberal order mourned today was based on the assumption that reason would guide us to a definitive destination. As more disillusioned believers acknowledge the absence of this destination, the temptation arises to pinpoint a policy error as the cause. However, there was no misstep, as the destination was an illusion from the start. The real question is how we confront the knowledge that science cannot resolve the human condition. This tragic wisdom is what modernity struggles to accept, reminding us that our greatest achievements are intertwined with our deepest vulnerabilities. Our challenge is to witness this paradox, acknowledging the complex interconnections between knowledge and power, hope and despair, and the enduring discontent that accompanies progress.
Pranav Sharma, a historian of science, writes from New Delhi, India, and Paro, Bhutan.
Comments