game of thrones as theory _ foreign affairs

9/4/2014 Game of Thrones as Theory | Foreign Affairs

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137360/charli-carpenter/game-of-thrones-as-theory?cid=soc-facebook-in-snapshots-game_of_thrones_as_theory-040914 1/7

Hom e In ter n a t ion a l Edit ion s Dig ita l New ssta n d Job Boa r d A ccou n t Ma n a g em en t RSS New sletter s

SEARCH

Log in Reg ister (0) My Ca r t

M A R C H 2 9 , 2 0 1 2

Commentary by foreign policy analysts on the first season of HBO's Game of

Thrones stressed its supposed underlying theme of political realism. Thus one writer

claimed that the TV show and the George R.R. Martin novels on which it is based

"clearly demonstrate the power of might over right," and another agreed: "In this

kind of harsh relative gains world, realpolitik should be the expected pattern of

behavior." But a closer look of Game of Thrones suggests a different take.

To be sure, life in Westeros is poor, nasty, brutish and short, and Martin's A Song of

Ice and Fire series and David Benioff and D.B. Weiss' television program are laced

with Hobbesian metaphors, Machiavellian intrigues, and Carr-like calculations of

power. But the deeper message is that realism alone is unsatisfying and unsuccessful

-- that leaders disregard ethical norms, the needs of their small-folk, and the natural

world at their own peril. Jockeying for power by self-interested actors produces not

a stable balance but suboptimal chaos; gamesmanship and the pursuit of short-term

objectives distracts players from the truly pressing issues of human survival and

stability.

On the surface, ethical norms and honor receive short shrift in the series. Norms --

collective beliefs about the proper behavior of actors -- are sometimes invoked, but

usually only to foreshadow or bemoan their violation. [Spoiler Alert] Thus the first

book, and season, begins with Ned Stark explaining to his son the proper rules

governing executions -- and ends with Stark being executed improperly for his

naivet. But much of the characters' behavior is in fact rule-bound: Catelyn could

not have captured Tyrion without her father's banner-men following norms of

fealty, and Tyrion could not have escaped her grasp had norms of the "kings' justice"

not trumped Lysa's desire for an execution (and Catelyn's desire to retain a hostage).

Even powerful characters sometimes follow rules to their own short-term detriment

and frustration.

Social relations in Westeros are sustained as much through bread-breaking rituals,

arranged marriages, and promise-keeping as through backstabbing and treachery,

and the power of such rules is only highlighted by their occasional breach. Lords and

kings no less than oath-breakers are punished for violating custom and agreement --

either explicitly or through the inability to convert their hard power into material

successes. Contrary to Cersei's assertion, kings cannot always "do as they like": Ned

and the chivalry he represented may appear to have been the loser at the end of book

and season one, but Joffrey's disregard for basic standards of justice will return to

haunt him as it did his predecessors. The true moral of the story is that when good

rules are disregarded, disorder and ruin follow -- just as Thucydides' story of Melos,

Game of Thrones as TheoryIts Not as Realist as It Seems -- And Thats Good

Part of The Best of Web in 2012

By Charli Carpenter



some argue , when paired with his description of Pericles' death and Athens' fall, is

meant to suggest that the gains that power achieves without justice cannot endure.

The true moral of the story is that when good rules are disregarded,

disorder and ruin follow.

In Westeros, as in our world, norms exert power both by creating incentives for

certain behaviors and by defining identities -- which in turn shape people's

motivations, interests, and strategies. By following the rules and norms of the

Night's Watch, ordinary criminals are reconstituted as protectors of the realm.

Distinctive cultural norms surrounding death, sex, cuisine, and travel are what

distinguish the Dothraki from Westerosi, not simply ethnicity. Power and norms

together are what determine outcomes, in short, and the wisest actors are those who

understand how to use both.

Discarding realism's exclusive focus on the powerful, Game of Thrones pays attention

to all sectors of society, including those at the bottom. Martin uses many plot

devices to force viewers to see the world of the elites through the eyes of stewards,

prostitutes, bastards, and dwarfs. Even seemingly marginalized characters are forced

to reflect on their own relative privilege, as when Tyrion calls Jon out for whining

over his illegitimacy and Bran for sulking about his disability when they have been

bred in castles.

Perhaps the most marginalized viewpoint in war literature, and political narrative

more generally, is that of the enemy itself. Yet in Game of Thrones, even the despots,

king-slayers, executioners, and slave-traders are humanized and contextualized. As

Adam Serwer notes , "Tolkien's monsters are literally monsters ... [but] most of

Martin's monsters are people. Just when you've decided to hate them, [Martin]

writes a chapter from their perspective, forcing you to consider their point of view."

Martin shows how gender, race, class, age, and disability combine to produce

multiple gradients and forms of power in Westerosi society, just as much as

differences in material capabilities. By mixing things up, moreover, he reminds the

audience that these categories are often constructed rather than fixed: the strong and

handsome find themselves crippled; princes become slaves; noblewomen turn into

stable hands; bastards grow to be commanders.

Indeed, the riddle of power from Clash of Kings, highlighted in one of the trailers for

Season 2 , suggests as much: "In a room sit three great men: a king, a priest, and a

rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sell-sword, a little man of common

birth, and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. 'Do it,'

says the king, 'for I am your lawful ruler.' 'Do it,' says the priest, 'for I command you

in the names of the gods.' 'Do it,' says the rich man, 'and all this gold shall be yours.'

So tell me -- who lives and who dies?" The answer from the book -- "that is up to the

sell-sword" -- outlines the underacknowledged power of the lower orders. Peasants,

infantry, sailors, stewards, camp followers, smiths, millers, and the like are the social

foundations on which the elites stand and through whose allegiance they ultimately

rise or fall. Today's academic realism has no such sophisticated social theory,

whereas alternative, critical approaches put it at the center of their framework.

Perhaps nothing underscores this more than the portrayal of gender relations on the

show. Westeros and surrounding lands are of course deeply misogynistic societies,

but this hardly makes the show and novels sexist, as some have claimed . Rather,

they force the audience to confront the violent reality of feudal gender relations.

Martin's in-your-face depictions of debauchery, sexual assault, trafficking, forced

marriage, and illegitimacy refute the gendered myth that knights and armies exist to

protect women and children, just as they refute the political myth that states exist to



protect nations from serious external threats. In standard fantasy, female characters

who fail to play along with these myths tend to be punished (compare Eowyn to

Arwen in Lord of the Rings). Not so in Martin's realm: Sansa, the only character who

appears to buy into notions of chivalry, is painted as pitiably naive.

The stronger female characters of Martin's world are indeed constrained by gender

norms, but rather than embody them they chafe at and try to maneuver around their

circumstances, each representing different feminist ripostes to the gender-blind

realist narrative of statecraft and world politics. Catelyn draws on her maternal

power to guide her son's army. Daenerys, buoyed by the soft-power tactics she

learned from her handmaid, seizes power in the wake of her husband's death, using it

to, among other things, advance a feminist liberation policy in the lands across the

Narrow Sea. Cersei uses her beauty and family connections ruthlessly, but

constantly risks ensnarement by the very gender scripts she has so cleverly

manipulated. Osha the wildling toys with Westerosi class and gender norms in

conversations with Theon, then playfully throws them away in favor of a blunt eco-

libertarianism. Arya refuses the roles society has set for her as a girl; warriors

Brienne and Asha (whose name has been changed for the TV series) follow different

paths to power on masculine terms.

Finally, Game of Thrones suggests a critique of the myopic focus on national security

over the needs of individuals and the collective good -- a theme more consistent with

human security doctrine than with classic political realism. Consider the foreign

policy of Daenerys, the slave bride turned Bedouin queen of Dothrak. Newly

bedragoned, but with husband and child dead, few followers, and no territory, she

begins season two with little but soft power, ambition, and a concern for the

oppressed. Tribal lords mistrust her, but refugees and former slaves flock to her

banner, and her moral standing is crucial to helping her gain increasing power in the

lands beyond the Narrow Sea. Daenerys faces hard choices and embodies

contradictions, and she ends up grappling with all-too-familiar challenges and limits

of humanitarian intervention and liberal imperialism. But she tries to balance the

demands of power and principle rather than retreat into cynicism or indifference --

hardly the standard realist response.

Environmental disaster, meanwhile, threatens all even as it is ignored by most. Far

from being an allegory for immigration reform , the story of the Northern Wall and

the forces it holds at bay is about the mistaken belief that industrial civilization can

stand against the changing forces of nature. The slogan "Winter is coming" is meant

literally as well as metaphorically: planetary forces are moving slowly but inexorably

toward climatic catastrophe as the infighting among kings and queens distracts them

from the bigger picture. This is a collective action story, with the Night's Watch

issuing increasingly desperate alarms yet receiving indifferent shrugs. The wight

menace gives the term "human security" a new meaning, presenting Westeros with a

common threat against which it might ally, but even so cooperation is difficult. The

answer will eventually come from alliances with northern barbarian hordes, fringe

populations who are the first victims of environmental change, and with these

alliances will come dramatic tradeoffs in political culture, as newcomers bring with

them distinct ideas about politics, society, and religion. The argument seems clear: if

existing governance structures cannot manage emerging global threats, expect them

to evolve or fall by the wayside.

As a foreign policy story, Martin's tale is far less conservative and far more

transformative than meets the eye. A parable about the consequences of unchecked

realpolitik, it does not celebrate power and the powerful but challenges and

interrogates them. Society is complex, roles and identities are varied and contingent,

and division risks disaster. Hic sunt dracones indeed.



ESSAY, SEP/OCT 2004

Why Democracies ExcelJoseph T. Siegle,

Michael M. Weinstein, a n d

Morton H. Halperin

DISPELLING A MYTH"Economic development makesdemocracy possible" asserts theU.S. State Department's Website, subscribing to a highlyinfluential argument: that poorcountries must developeconomically before they candemocratize. But the historicaldata prove otherwise. Poordemocracies have ...

ESSAY, SPRING 1983

Reconsiderations: Periodsof Peril: The Window ofVulnerability and OtherMythsRobert H. Johnson

Mankind has a pressingpsychological need to explainthe world; it has no such needto see it explained correctly. -Patrick M. Morgan In thepost-World War II eraAmericans have had a pressingneed to come to terms withtwo critical internationaluncertainties: the futurecharacter of Soviet ...

COMMENT, JAN/FEB 2012

The Future of HistoryFrancis Fukuyama

Something strange is going onin the world today. The globalfinancial crisis that began in2008 and the ongoing crisis ofthe euro are both products ofthe model of lightly regulatedfinancial capitalism thatemerged over the past threedecades. Yet despite widespreadanger at Wall Street ...

ON THIS TOPIC

E-mail (example:[email protected]): *Get the latestcommentary and analysis delivered straight toyour inbox.

Email

SIGN UP

LATEST COMMENTARY & NEWS ANALYSIS

19 Comments Foreign Affairs Login

Sort by Best Share

Join the discussion

Reply

Guest 4 days ago

Daenerys and soft power in the same sentence? This doesn't sound right. The girl has

dragons which are basically WMD.

6

Reply

Michael Cugley 4 days ago Guest

Not when she started out. To begin with, all she had were small kitten-sized

lizards she didn't even know how to feed. They weren't actually *useful* as

anything other than symbols or curiosities until the House of the Undying.

3

Reply

Juan Rodriguez 4 days ago Michael Cugley

Yes but her source of power was always resting on the potential of those

lizards. There is no Mutually Assured Destruction as no other kingdoms

posses this weapon. This an extra narrative that complements the

complexity of her character. She uses soft power but her WMD gives her

credibility.

4

Favorite

Share

Share

Share

More from the publisher of Foreign Affairs Newsletters



Reply 4

Reply

AJ_Olding 2 days ago Guest

In the beginning her power was certainly soft power.

Reply

Me a year ago

Great article, thank you for writing it.

6

Reply

Branimir Kuntek a year ago

I have to disagree with this article's secondary thesis. I think Martin very much writes

to the benefit of the 'realpolitik' theories. Take the example of Daenerys: much of her

troubles comes from her inability, or unwillingness, to radicalise her revolution.

Someone suggested (Daario?) to massacre the 'old nobility', and she refused. She had,

in trying to achieve peace and acceptance (they will never accept her), made the error

of leaving them diminished but with much of their power intact.

Had she slaughtered them, divided their properties to the freedmen and a class of

smallholders, she would have won the love and loyalty of the greatest part of the

population (as well as revitalising the economy).

Yet, her morality came in her way, and this left her in the bad place.

Same script with Robb Stark, and so many others.

5

Reply

Branimir Kuntek a year ago Branimir Kuntek

I should have added: "Appearing just, but being a pr*ck", that's the definition of

realpolitik (I'm basically quoting Machiavelli here :D). Joffrey's mistakes are

that he LOOKS like a ... well.

1

Reply

jebozwell 2 days ago Branimir Kuntek

There is an assumption in your analysis that I think should be examined...."Had

she slaughtered them, divided their properties to the freedmen and a class of

smallholders....(as well as revitalizingthe economy)...

Is this really true? She would have won "some" love and loyalty, but what

about the economy part? Has any past Marxist type effort to divide the riches

left a country with an improved economy? Have any similar efforts improved

the lives of the poor? Look at recent history for answers, China, Russia, North

Korea, South Africa, Iraq.

What all of these revolutionary instances have in common is that the people

who ran the country and managed the economy (no matter how corrupt and

inefficient) were fundamentally and logrithmically better at it than the

revolutionaries.

Revolution and re-distribution have invarioubly hurt the poor and powerless

more than any others. All the revolutionary act really accomplishes is

substituting one set of masters for another, everything else is just the fantasies

of the hopeful.

Reply

Anastasia Caramanis 4 days ago

Eowyn punished? Her consolation prize was the lovely Faramir. How is that

punishment? :-)

2

Strac5 2 days ago

And it was supposedly YOU CFR PEOPLE who were secretly ruling? You are idiots,

and this vacuous essay proves it. That "when good rules are disregarded, disorder and

ruin follow" is a platitude, obvious even to a mediocrity like Leo Strauss. You haven't

even figured out yet who will take the throne and why it had to be so. Spare us the

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share



Reply

phony nuance of claiming that villainy is an artificial Kantian category. A piece of $h!t

is a piece of $h!t, whether or not he is persecuted by others.

And there will be persecution.

Reply

jebozwell 2 days ago

How is soft power and concern for citizens working out vis-a-vis Russia and the

Ukraine. Soft power is only useful, when hard power backs it up. Can the west respond

to Russia with concern for our own citizens and their rights and freedoms? Will

income-equality mean anything to Putin?

Doubtful, soft power is about the self-restraint of a nation's interests based on

institutional rules of interaction. Self restraint is based on what? Either the desire to

continue to participate in the institutions from which one benefits, or the fear of the

national power of other countries.

Ukraine is great example of a leader who has determined that he has more to fear from

a Democratic revolution in a neighboring country than he has to fear from either the

institutions of the liberal world order, or the only major superpower on the planet.

What Putin really fears is that a major segment of the Russian speaking world will

establish a functional representative democracy. Once this happens the rule of the

oligarchs in Russia can be measured in months. What is destabilizing Russia is the

West's liberal, egalitarian, humanism, not realpolitik.

The author's mixing up social diatribe against "conservatism" and capitalist economic

theory, with international relations theory, the two don't really mix well.

Reply

DAMLA ALTINIIK 2 days ago

this is so great article.DAMLA ALTINIIK

Reply

Not My Name 3 months ago

Amazing article. I love the part about "Winter is Coming"; it was like a light bulb went

off in my head.

Reply

SUSAN WEBER a year ago

i think i already knew this...i dont look to HBO for political theory...does anyone?

Reply

Farah M. Hage Ali a year ago

Absolutely, Spellar is right. Fictions cannot be applied on reality. Heroes

and heroins in fictions represent the good leader that cannot be found

in real life and can never exist. Unfortunately, nations are affected by direct and

indirect

decisions enforced by some powers, thus creating puppets rather than true leaders.

They turn to be following instead of making their own decisions that should emerge

from the needs of their people. Different threats affect their decisions and in turn their

people has to bear the undesirable and aloof decisions so that their private and business

interests are not affected by any political decision that they try to make. All these

realities are not found in fictions, because in fictions the hero sacrifices everything he

owns in order to save his people. The good overwhelms the bad at the end whereas in

reality the bad is the good and the good has no place at all because he is a total

dummy.

Reply

Javed Mir a year ago

--The true moral of the story is that when good rules are disregarded, disorder and ruin

follow --

So those nations/societies which want to survive need to have good rules having

universal appeal and not to impose their own thinking only serving their interests.

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share



Reply

Levon Petrossian 4 days ago Javed Mir

I don't think he means the "moral good." Maybe just "good" in terms of

efficiency and the rule of law?

Reply

Jason Keays a year ago

Power resides only where men believe it resides. It's a trick. A shadow on the wall.

George R.R. Martin

Reply

spellar a year ago

see more

Fiction is best left on the shelf of fiction , but there is a huge flaw in books of today that

speak on the topic of politics , and that is nature has nothing to do with politics as the

engine behind a movement that is based on a core nature of a group , tribe , region ,

nation , or a people in the hundred of millions will act not on the bases of poltics but

rather a belief system that is the core of their being .

So as Nations consider politics internally , they are blind to the outer forces of non

based political parties , but rather these are forces threaded together by a nature and

not a religion .

Politics of today is not aware of the real threat to stable growth and development ,

considering the fact that the USA has crippled its economic growth through foreign

policy missions that has cost trillions in the last decade with ongoing debt of today

going to many programs the cover everything from care of Vets to missions funds in

the Billions each year to boost up failing Govs .

I find it more than questionable when Americans have great concern for internal

economics and less concern for foreign policy , when infact foreign policy has chewed

far more out of the economic stability of the Nation .

While the politics point to internal factors , the external factors of a gathering of people

in the hundreds of Millions world wide of a common nature and not religion is uniting

Subscribe Add Disqus to your site

Share

Share

Share

game of thrones as theory _ foreign affairs

Documents