by 
The Illusions of the Liberal World Order: Power, Science, and Human Nature
The Age of Discovery, which fueled the scientific revolution, was intricately linked to imperial ambitions. The mastery of the world was achieved not only through military might and financial records but also via classifications and navigational tools. Viewing science as an impartial quest for universal truths, detached from the political framework, is to embrace a narrative as fanciful as any myth. Science is deeply embedded in the dynamics of power, identity, and historical context that it aims to analyze.
Liberal internationalism, equipped with scientific reasoning, envisioned a world where democracy, free markets, and rational governance could be exported like a proven scientific principle. The failures of this dream—from Vietnam's jungles to Iraq's deserts—are often attributed to policy errors or a failure to grasp the realities of nationalism and power struggles. Yet, this critique overlooks a deeper issue: the failure was not just political but also epistemic, rooted in a worldview that simplifies complex societies to mere variables in a geopolitical experiment.
The technocratic belief that a nation's cultural and political fabric could be engineered as precisely as a microchip reflects not the rigor of science but its subsumption under managerial logic. In this framework, science becomes a tool wielded by elites to justify interventions under the guise of evidence-based policy. Meanwhile, realism serves as a sobering reminder of the harsh realities of power politics and security dilemmas.
Nationalism vs. Science: A Clash of Narratives
While structural realism presents a tidy model of an anarchic world where states operate under immutable laws of power, it fails to capture the complexities of state behavior. States are not mere objects but dynamic entities shaped by identity, memory, and emotional forces. This fundamental tension arises from the clash between science, which seeks universal truths, and nationalism, which thrives on unique narratives and myths. Nations are imagined communities, constructed not for their empirical validity but for their ability to connect individuals to grander stories.
The liberal assumption that increased wealth and rational governance would diminish particularistic passions has proven misguided. Instead of receding, nationalism has surged in the U.S., while populism has gained traction across Europe, and authoritarianism has tightened its grip from Moscow to Beijing. These trends are not deviations but evidence that the liberal model misunderstood what truly motivates people.
The Paradox of Progress: Science and Catastrophe
The liberal faith also rests on a misguided belief that scientific progress would inevitably lead to moral and political enlightenment. However, history has consistently challenged this notion, as the same rationality that mapped the human genome enabled the precise planning of atrocities. The space race epitomized this paradox, symbolizing ideological supremacy while casting a shadow of potential annihilation. The nuclear age redefined warfare, not as a quest for conquest but as an exercise in existential deterrence, suggesting that progress and disaster can arise from the same source.
As we enter a new century, we confront unprecedented challenges: artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and cyber warfare are not just new tools but disruptive forces that blur the lines between military and civilian realms. The U.S.-China rivalry over advanced computing transcends traditional arms races, revealing the inadequacy of political frameworks designed for a bygone era to address these modern threats.
Climate Change: The Ironic Legacy of Enlightenment Ambitions
The irony of climate change stands out as humanity grapples with the consequences of the very rationality that sought to liberate us from nature's whims. The Anthropocene is not merely a new geological era; it reflects the unintended fallout of Enlightenment aspirations. The drive to dominate nature has, ironically, jeopardized the very ecosystems sustaining human life. This failure is not a flaw in the scientific method but a breakdown of the narrative that framed science as a clear path to progress—an assumption that underpinned the liberal order’s confidence.
In navigating the complexities of international relations, science cannot serve as either a savior or a scapegoat. It exists within a historical context as a contingent practice. While it can illuminate the world, it cannot redeem it. We must remain cautious, resisting both the allure of technocratic triumph and reactionary disbelief, understanding science as a dual force of knowledge and power.
Redefining Our Understanding of Power and Knowledge
Realism offers valuable insights about the anarchic nature of the world and the importance of power, yet it too is just another narrative that attempts to impose order on a chaotic reality. Science shares this narrative economy, providing not only explanations but also a framework for understanding our place in an indifferent universe. This realization serves as a reminder that the liberal order was predicated on the false assumption that reason would lead to a clear destination. As disillusioned supporters acknowledge this failure, the temptation to pinpoint a policy error looms large. Yet, such an error never existed because the destination itself was a mirage.
The pressing question remains not whether science can resolve the human predicament, but rather how we coexist with the knowledge that it cannot. This tragic wisdom continues to elude modernity, yet it is essential to recognize that our greatest achievements coexist with our most profound vulnerabilities. Our task lies not in seeking redemption in scientific advancement but in acknowledging and witnessing the tenuous connections that link knowledge to power, hope to despair, and progress to its enduring discontents.
Pranav Sharma, a historian of science, writes from New Delhi, India, and Paro, Bhutan. (Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)
Comments