I haven’t read a single piece by Alexander Wendt that was boring or not original… and he has done it again. In a 2008 paper (how could I miss it until now?) Wendt and Duvall show how sovereignty is the reason why authorities are not funding UFO research. Quickly summarised, the argument goes:
- There is both physical (video, radar etc) and testimonial evidence (eyewitnesses) that UFOs exists. More than 20% of the physical evidence remains unexplained by natural phenomena, and testimonial evidence is important in courts (why should it not make the existence of UFOs plausible?). While this does not prove that UFOs or ET life exists, under normal scientific criteria this would warrant more investigation. Given that discovering ET life would probably be the most important event in human history, it makes even less sense from a scientific perspective to ignore this evidence.
- Persons are labelled as insane and not trustworthy when claiming they have seen a UFO. But people believing in God are well respected. Even so, from a scientific perspective, at least the UFO leaves traces. God does not.
- Then, why would we not pour resources into investigating if ET life is in proximity to Earth, instead of only keeping the possibility open that there is life at far-away stars?
The answer, Wendt and Duvall argue, is that states are concerned about their sovereignty. And sovereignty is anthropocentric – that is, based on the premise that humans are the masters and rulers of the world. Anything beyond humans that may potentially rule us would be a threat to the state and its right to rule (sovereignty). The existence of UFOs would mean that:
- Natural science, developed by humans in the name of us being superior, would be brought into question. Other species would be more advanced than us. Since the state system is built on anthropocentrism (humans, not rocks or animals built the state system), the justification for the state system would fall apart. States’ right to rule would be jeopardised.
- If UFOs are found to constitute a threat, the world would most probably be united across borders (a world state??). Sovereignty would be undermined.
In short, it is in the interest of states to ignore UFOs – exactly what they are doing by not even launching serious research programs. As Wendt and Duvall conclude, this is paradoxal, since:
taking UFOs seriously would certainly embody the spirit of self-criticism that infuses liberal governmentality and academia in particular, and it would, thereby, foster critical theory. And indeed, if academics’ first responsibility is to tell the truth, then the truth is that after sixty years of modern UFOs, human beings still have no idea what they are, and are not even trying to find out. That should surprise and disturb us all, and cast doubt on the structure of rule that requires and sustains it.
Wendt and Duvall, as social constructivists, have an agenda of course. Demonstrating that human superiority is essential to the existence of the modern state system means that humans – the social world – is ontologically more important for the analysis of IR than guns and rocks. Whether UFOs exist (and will change the state system) or not is thus besides the point. The scientific ignorance proves the point.
Posted by Bjørn Stærk on July 4, 2009 at 01:13
That seems like a far-fetched explanation, especially when there’s a more plausible one available: The evidence that UFO’s are anything ET-related hasn’t convinced enough government officials to get large amounts of research funding. Or, it has convinced enough to get some funding at various times and places, but it didn’t lead to any interesting results. Nobody’s afraid, they just don’t see the point.
That doesn’t prove that there’s nothing ET-related here. But consider this: If aliens have been visiting the earth, frequently and in many countries for at least half a century, shouldn’t there be some harder evidence by now? Something that just could not be denied by any reasonable person? Not grainy videos or hypnotically induced memories, but, say, a physical object, or clear phootage captured by news organizations.
“But people believing in God are well respected.”
Because of habit. We’re used to making special exceptions for religious believers. It’s inconsistent, but the consistency should go the other way: Doubt believers as well.
Btw, note that many Christians today have abandoned the position that you can prove the existence of God with science. They’ve adopted a more defensible position, that “you just have to make a leap of faith”. They do this because they can’t actually offer any proofs, but they still want to believe, so they’ve withdrawn their beliefs from the realm of proof. People who believe that UFO’s are extra-terrestrial should ask themselves if it is possible that they’re doing something similar, or, if one did, how would one know?