Dymond Speech Competition

Before I start my speech can I get everyone in the room to close their eyes and take 5 seconds to think about the first 5 words that come to mind when I say the word Masculinity.

Okay, I’m sure everyone came up with some similar and some vastly different and unique words. Prior to speaking here today, I performed some primary research; I went out and asked the general public what they thought masculinity means. Their responses included such things as;

Aggressive, Adonis, Brave, Bold, Boisterous, Butch, Confident, Caring, Calm, Chivalrous, Dad, Drive, Death, Expectations, Egotistical, Friendship, Fear, Gym, Hedonistic, harmful, Intelligent, Independent, Lad, Loud, Leader, Man, Muscles, Misunderstood, Mentality, Narcissistic, Patriarchy, Paternal, Power, Protect, Rugby, Strong, Suicide, Stereotype, Superior, Stoic, Toxic, Testosterone, Tate, Weak, Weights, Willing and Wealthy

Now these words begin to outline how the idea of masculinity today is divisive.

•  On one hand, we have a positive and more personal idea of masculinity, seen in words such as; “caring, calming and protecting”. These words imply a gentle and more intimate familial representation of masculinity 
• But on the other hand, we have a more negative idea of masculinity. This includes words such as toxic, egotistical and Narcissistic,

These contradictory ideas of masculinity lead to masculinity being in crisis and this is something I am going to explore during my speech.

But first, we need to settle on a definition of masculinity

Well, the Oxford dictionaries definition is “having the qualities or appearance considered to be typical of men”. This fits with our two ideas, both expressing qualities or appearances typically seen by male presenting people.

However Personally, I think ideas of masculinity act as a limitation to being male. Young boys are taught to be men primarily by their environment and the societal beliefs of the time, changing their behaviours to fit into a group. Even in school boys are taught to be strong, bold and determined which are all vital qualities, however, this isn't helpful if, you need help, whether it be mental or physical help, because you're not taught to admit weakness. This, therefore, has a direct knock-on on our everyday life, for example, I’ve been hurt during a sports game and thought “Oh it's fine I’ll keep going” because I’ve learnt to be strong and persevere, or, I haven’t spoken up and admitted to anyone that I’m feeling pressured and overwhelmed to the point where I feel I have to escape and cry alone in the gardens where no one can see me. And all of this is due to what we’re taught and the expectations placed upon us as young boys.

This process continues and continues, and if you try to open up and start the conversation admitting that you're not alright then you’re shut down and told that “you're a bit gay” or “he’s a simp” and I know this because I have experienced this. But what’s braver than coming out while still at school, and where does the word simp come from but for the Latin “sympatheticus” meaning to sympathise. So you force yourself to conform to these norms you’ve had thrust in front of you.

“Bottle up your emotions and don’t show any weakness.” 

Now men, men out there today, I’m not saying everything we've learnt is wrong or that you can't be determined and have a strong mindset nor am I saying that we aren’t allowed to fulfil stereotypically masculine roles, because sometimes it is really good to do all of those.

Look at me: I like going to the gym. I like looking good. and I like to be determined and not give up once I start a project.

But as a conscientious man living in our modern world, I have witnessed women dealing with such difficult and uncalled-for behaviours, wolf-whistling, groping and being sent horrifically graphic sexually explicit imagines. And these are my friends experiencing these situations. And you know what? It is disgusting. But it's laughed about and normalised. And this is caused by, systematic, toxic, masculinity.

However, As Maria Mies, writer of the book Ecofeminism, said “If patriarchy had a specific beginning in history, it could also have an end”

So let's explore this beginning. Now Traditional ideas of masculinity are born from a patriarchal society, and no matter how adamant those in power believe that we aren’t in one now, we are.

Looking at our world today the majority of our leaders are male, in fact only 13 out of the 193 heads of state in the UN are women. 13 out of 193, that's 7%. And those women that are in power are stepping down. New Zealand’s Jacinda Arden, Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon, Germany’s Angela Merkel the list goes on, with all these women stepping out of these roles, what does this say about the role itself? 

Men have been in power for so long that it has become the status quo and this leads to society believing that men will be better and stronger leaders as it has only ever been men. However, this is disproved by the track record of those counties where women are in power; look at New Zealand’s handle on the covid outbreak. or Germany’s development over the last 18 years. And to be honest, all we need to do is look at Boris’s bewildered blunderings to understand that being a man doesn’t mean you are a good leader.

See, these old men, clinging to their positions of power long after they should have retired into their cushion covered mansions, are stopping new developments in our modern world. And their boorish behaviours have trickled down through society to reinforce the outdated ideas of patriarchy. The idea that men lead while the women stay silent and do what they’re told

But this desire for power can perhaps be explained by looking back through history. Men and women had clearly defined roles; men were head of the household, being the providers and protectors. These men are now being told that they don’t have to continue to do this in our modern society which promotes equality and more freedoms than any other time in history, and quite rightly, we need to evolve. 

As women take on what once were seen as masculine roles, men are declining the opportunity to exhibit feminine traits that would help us develop. This adds to the idea of masculinity being in crisis and leads to a generation of men, my generation of men, becoming lost and unsure where we stand in society. So naturally where do we turn? But of course, the addictive truth telling devices in our pockets. Phones. These lost men, we place our trust and allegiance in online role models, whose behaviour we copy in a vague attempt to “fit in” however hurtful it may be. This act of flocking to negative role models and recreating their behaviour leads to a negative view of men and then in turn to the loss of trust in men. 

However, if you stop and look around the world there are a lot of really positive acts taking place by men. 

The “Dads on Duty” program, for example, this is a program that has been applied to some of the most boisterous and aggressive schools in Louisiana. It involves dads being present in school, not as teachers or councillors but just being there to act as dads maintaining a peaceful environment. The mere presence of positive, familiar role models, fathers, has a direct impact on reducing the violence that young children get involved in at schools.

Another example is the HE for SHE movement promoted by Emma Waston at the UN in 2014 this movement asks the question, how can we create real change in the world if only half of it are taking part in the conversation? It shines a light on gender inequalities going both ways, and it aims to create a future where our own children can be the most true versions of themselves and not just conform to what they’ve been told to do or be.

As Emma herself said “It is time that we all perceive gender as a spectrum instead of two sets of opposing ideals’

Now we need this spectrum because If men don’t have to be aggressive to be accepted, then women don’t have to feel compelled to be submissive – if men don’t have to control, women don’t have to be controlled Our Daughters sister and mothers can all be free from prejudice – but also so that our sons have permission to vulnerable and human too and this is so vitally important to us.

Now today I could stand here and say “Look at me I’m the perfect example”, but I can’t because no one is perfect, and let's be honest who would want to be perfect? But I am not an example because to be blunt and honest I can be such an arrogant self-centred jerk sometimes. I can say or do things without thinking that can be really harmful, I let my animalistic ID take control and once something is said or done you can’t undo or unsay it. We all do this, but we can all change for the future, not overnight, but we can all work at it.

So if you’re sitting in this meeting house tonight, playing your part, denying what you want to say, but secretly waiting for a sign to stand up, stand up for what’s right, let this be your sign. because if all of us work together to redefine masculinity, to put the past, where it belongs, Behind us and be our true selves it’ll make the future a nicer and safer place for everyone. So here I am not calling any of you out on behaviour but rather calling you in and imploring you to speak up to and stand with me in sharing this message.

So now! You, me, everyone, Put truth to power. Because as Mikhail Gorbachev said, “If not me who, if not now when.” Thank you very much.

Hands up. Anyone here who thinks they can sing. Don’t worry, I’m not going to ask you to prove it. Interesting. So, no more than 10% of you. That means about 90% of you all think you can’t sing. Well, I’m here to tell you, you can. Everyone can. John Koopman said ‘Singing is the vocal production of musical tones and is so basic to man its origins are long lost in antiquity and predate the development of spoken language. The voice is presumed to be the original musical instrument, and there is no human culture, no matter how remote or isolated, that does not sing’. We all have a voice. We all have pitch, tone, and intonation. Every time we speak, we sing. Just less fabulously.

But it’s true, we can all sing. So what’s with this 90%? Well, I think a lot of people don’t sing because of one of three preconceptions.

1. I can’t sing. Wrong. You can sing if you make different pitches with your voice. Full stop. You may not sound like an angel. But that doesn’t mean you are incapable of singing. It means you haven’t yet mastered control of your singing voice which takes time and practise. But the fact you don’t sound like Ariana Grande or Frank Sinatra doesn’t mean you can’t sing. We all sound different. Your voice is as unique as your fingerprints. Own it. No matter how out of tune. It’s not all about sound. It’s also about feel.

2. I don’t like singing. Also wrong. Not an opinion. A fact. When people say this they often mean they don’t like singing in front of people, and so that affects their idea about singing as a whole. But singing itself is a joyous release of endorphins and inhibitions. Don’t believe me, pop down your local pub on a Friday night. I have experienced ‘non-singers’ swear blind they’ll never hum a note until after a few too many drinks later they’re wailing Sweet Caroline at the top of their lungs without a care in the world of how they look or sound. But it’s so joyous. People who say they don’t like singing are like people who say they don’t like chocolate. There’s either something medically wrong, or they’re lying. I believe Ella Fitzgerald summed it up best when saying ‘The only thing better than singing is more singing’. So there.

3. I feel embarrassed when singing. This one hurts the most. When you put your voice out there to be heard it is an incredibly personal thing. A thing a lot of people are afraid of. What people don’t realise is that singing does not have to be performative. I set a bad example as I suffer from an unfortunate case of centrestageitus, but singing can be done alone sadly enough, or with a close group of friends. I have had the privilege of watching talented charismatic singers who are brilliant when relaxed in a small group turn to jelly if they have to solo in front of a live audience due to the shaky breath’s effect on a singer’s voice. This third reason is why I believe so much in the power of group singing.

James Sills says in his book ‘Do Sing’, ‘I believe in the power of singing. Like laughing and dancing it is a simple and joyful expression of our humanity. To sing in a group is an act of love, for yourself and for other people.’. And he’s right. There really is something intrinsically good, universal, and joyous about singing in a group. People have reservations about joining a choir. They assume it’s too formal, or it has religious roots, or everyone there will be amazing. The definition of a choir is ‘a group of people singing together’. That’s it. There was a 2018 survey about a choir called ‘The Choir With No Name’ which recorded 96% of members made new friends, 76% had improved mental health, and 93% gained improved confidence. I have experienced these feelings firsthand having been a part of the school choirs since Mr Woolley talent scouted me in year 7. When surrounded by a group of people singing together, the whole group becomes one. You actively breathe together. Your hearts synchronise. That’s not poetic, it’s factual. Studies have shown that heart rates rise and fall directly proportionally with each other when people sing together. Your heart beats beat to the beat. Isn’t that amazing? And harmonizing with people creates this unique connection. The word harmony literally comes from the Greek word ‘Harmonia’ meaning joining or agreement. So, joining together, wherever you are, and singing together is one of the most connective and unique things that humans have been doing since the dawn of time. In the words of the great Bob Marley. ‘Let’s get together and feel alright’.

I had the privilege of joining a choir in Portishead last summer to perform. I walked into this church and joined the tenors’ section and realised I had brought the average age of the choir significantly down to 74. The second youngest being the choir mistress in her early 40s. And I thought ‘what have I gotten myself into’. And some of them were talented. And some of them, and I won’t mention names in case Gladys and Linda are in tonight, but some of them were flatter than a baking tray. And I slogged my way through the rehearsals purely so I could sing my solo from Les Misérables and get complimented by all the grannies at the final performance. So, there I was, waiting for my turn, and the older choir sang a song that I hadn’t rehearsed with them, so I didn’t sing. It was the song ‘Danny Boy’ if anyone knows it. And I’ll never forget this one old man sat in the bass section who hadn’t said a word during any of the rehearsals, always showed up by himself, stood up to sing this song, and put every fibre of his being into it. There were tears in his eyes, and I could hear his voice, absolutely beautiful. And the other old man next to him simply put his hand on his back. And I realised this was it. This was the power of singing at work. The emotional aspect of it. I watched a TedTalk recently, as we all should more often, by a man called Jude Taylor who’d created a six week singing course for adults with mental health issues and the results and support were heartwarming.

But it’s not just emotionally and mentally healthy, it’s physically healthy as well. The British Voice Association published a leaflet entitled ‘It’s official! Singing is good for you!’. It described various health benefits, reporting that singing improved immune systems, released endorphins, lowered blood pressure, and eased breathing. This is backed up by the British Lung Foundation who actively promote singing to people with unhealthy lungs, creating a movement called ‘singing for breathing’. So we can see, both mentally and physically, how singing truly does have a powerful effect on people.

A few years ago, I sang at my great uncle’s funeral. I sang some Joni Mitchell, obviously. And I remember standing up there, completely a cappella, feeling terrified I was gonna ruin the whole seriousness of the occasion by messing it up. But as soon as I started that all vanished and all that was left was to sing. And I sang, I started really thinking about my uncle. His annoying whistling at Christmas was now a faint jingle bell that I weirdly missed. I realised I was one of those people who has to sing to think. I have to sing to think. Whenever I am tired or stressed, I sit at my keyboard and I sing. Anything. And that great uncle has a sister, my nana, who is still alive but currently battling cancer, and I often send her videos of me singing in my room and saying hi to her in her hospital bed, because I know that it’s her favourite thing to hear. And I know whenever her funeral comes around that I’ll be singing. And I’ll think of her. And I’ll sing for her. Just as I hope people will sing for me at my funeral. I mean they better, otherwise I’m not going.

So I ask you, what’s stopping you from going out and singing your heart out. Join a choir, sing in the car, take up an instrument, be curious, listen to different artists, take singing lessons, especially if you’re a bloke. The stereotype around men singing being woosie or not manly is rubbish. Falsetto your heart out like no one’s listening. The power of singing, and the power of songs, is sensational. Singing is one of the first things we’re exposed to, lullabies. Why? It calms us down as babies. Why have we grown out of it? If I could sing myself to sleep, god I would. Songs function as windows into our souls. James Sills in his book writes that there are 6 functions of a song: Friendship, Joy, Comfort, Religion, Knowledge, Love. He also says that ‘Songs become the soundtrack to our lives and help us to understand the world around us’. I wholeheartedly believe this. Songs become the soundtrack to our lives and help us to understand the world around us. Our whole lives are songs. They have their high notes and lows. Their staccatos and legatos. Their major and their minor. So sing your song. And maybe, just maybe, someone will hear it, and begin to tap their feet. Life is so beautiful. And life is so hard. But above all life is a song.

So, sing it.

I know it’s a cliché to say this, but we are our own worst enemies. Read the papers! The main reason, it seems to me, is that people don’t talk to each other. Now this opening is not talking to you either. It’s rather vague and not giving any clues as to my main thrust and it’s about to become more specific. We humans don’t communicate well, but fungi do. As the smallest yet most influential life form on earth, fungi are pervasive. You may not realise it, but you would not be able to live a single day without interacting with fungi, even if only on a small scale, such as, for example, wearing jeans. There is a specific fungus called Trichoderma reesei which is used in the manufacture of denim and is what gives jeans their ‘stonewashed’ look. But let’s go back in time, the only reason plants made it out of the water around 500 million years ago is because they had help from fungi, who worked as their root systems until they could evolve their own, tens of millions of years later. My point is that, whether you like it or not, all living organisms rely heavily on fungi. And that as the world continues to evolve, with a decrease in natural resources, shrinking habitats, pollution and other manmade disasters that come with an ever-growing human population, the research on fungi is becoming increasingly important.

As you probably know, the world has got to the point where it can’t fix itself because of a certain “parasite”. Right?

We are all aware of the pollution crisis which includes oil spills, a huge problem which kills life, but what if I told you that there was quite a simple solution to that issue on land: the use of mushroom mycelium. I’ll stick to the basics and explain stuff you may not know. In an experiment by mycobiologist Paul Stamets, a group of scientists took four piles of waste materials covered in diesel. They treated these piles with enzymes, bacteria and mushroom mycelium to see what would happen and left them to sit for six weeks. On returning, they found that the enzyme and bacteria piles were black and dead. But what do you think they found in the mycelium pile? It was, in fact, covered with hundreds of kilograms of oyster mushrooms and was enormous. What had happened was that the mycelium had absorbed the oil and then produced enzymes that break carbon-hydrogen bonds. They decided to leave the pile for longer to see what would happen. The mushrooms sporulated, meaning they distributed millions of microscopic reproductive spores, the spores attracted insects, the insects laid eggs, which became larvae, which, in turn, attracted birds, bringing seeds and the next thing they knew, not literally, of course, they’d unwittingly created a rapidly reproducing island of life.

It is evident that not only could fungi help with oil spills, but that they are also what’s called a gateway species: which means that they allow other biological communities to flourish. Not only that, but they also allow plants, especially trees, to communicate with each other, through their mycelium. Now I mentioned mycelium earlier, I think it would be best if I actually explain what it is. You might have seen it before, as a horrid little fuzzy mass, sometimes white, green or even black, growing out of mouldy food. But mycelium is actually a network of thin fungal strands which are often mistaken for roots. They don’t only transport nutrients through the fungus, but they also are a vital part of breaking down organic material, as well as sending electric signals from fungus to fungus, or even from plant to plant. Mycelium spans pretty much the entire underground worldwide, connecting with roots from other plants constantly, and those plants, like trees, can use the mycelium to send electrical signals to each other, for example to send a warning of a plant killing disease or of man’s intrusion.

Research into fungi is important and could help with some of the problems we have created for ourselves. However, I must break it to you that sadly the oil experiment I mentioned earlier took place 14 years ago, and very little has been done with the information that was obtained from it. Now, this could be because the rich oil companies don’t want to own up to the fact that they are directly responsible, but there could be more contributing to it than that. Mycophobia, which means the irrational fear of fungi, has always been present in Western history. For example, in the Great Famine, where a fungus-like pathogen wiped out crop plants across Europe, especially in Ireland, in the mid 1800s, populations died. It is understandable that people weren’t quite sure how to feel about fungi after that, especially since historically there has been a tendency for mycophobia because of a few species, principally the death cap, which looks like an edible mushroom, but which can cause a very nasty death. Additionally, in the 1970s, in America, there was an increase in the intake of psychedelic mushrooms, causing the government to shut down all research into fungi, which created a taboo for all fungi in general. This taboo and phobia is still widespread today, those of you who know ‘The Last of Us’ get what I’m talking about. As a result, research into fungi that could have incredible medicinal possibilities has been dramatically slowed down, which, I’m sure, suits the pharmaceutical industry very well.

I’ve just mentioned magic mushrooms and their taboos, but psychedelics have actually been part of our history probably since the beginning of man, but the first reference to them is in one of the oldest devotional texts known to humanity, the ‘Rig Veda’. This text mentions a ritual drink called soma, which includes a mysterious ‘god plant’ and has caused researchers to believe that this drink included the typical fairytale toadstool, you know the red one with the white spots. Although soma is the first written record of psychedelics many scientists have theorised that the only way the human brain was able to evolve so quickly from the ape-like brain to your brain today, is because early humans while hunting and tracking buffalos found psychedelic mushrooms on buffalo excrement and ate them… not the poo… and therefore “opened their minds”; causing them to evolve faster. So not only have fungi made us who we are today, they could shape our future. Let’s start with something mundane. You want a living computer motherboard? Fungi. You want the best transport system in the world? Fungi. You want the quickest way out of IKEA? Fungi. Now, I know that sounds a bit ridiculous but bear with me. A slime mould enthusiast claimed that he would often get lost in IKEAs, spending quite a while trying to find the exits and he wanted to see if he could find a solution to this through some of the research he was already doing. Based on a similar experiment where fungi replicated the Tokyo train system, he made a maze in a Petri dish using his local IKEA floor plan, and within minutes the slime mould had found the easiest and quickest way through and out. More seriously though, did you know that scientists have found that one single dose of psychedelic mushrooms, administered in a controlled space and a medical environment, could cure depression. Now, disclaimer time! I’m talking about a medically controlled environment, so please, don’t rush to pick magic mushrooms in the Mendips or buy them at Glasto. There’s also some solo but unconnected research into the ability of fungi to cure many problem illnesses including cancer.  

I’m aware that I’ve bombarded you all with a lot of information all at once, but what can we learn from fungi? They are incredible species-enhancing organisms which do so much for our natural world already and could do so much more to help us to even cure our modern ills and to help heal our world. These fungi might be the key to avoiding more irreparable damage to the Earth. Being dependant on fungi may seem daunting, but we already are! We unknowingly live in a symbiotic relationship with them, they teach us about interconnection and communication within and between species and that having an open mind is the way to a better future…. In any case they give us a way out, and not just from IKEA.

Before I begin, I want you to imagine something for me. Imagine a poker game, played by outlaws in the Wild West in a dingy saloon, air thick with smoke, tinny piano music in the background, that sort of thing. The game goes well, until one player accuses another of cheating, and draws his revolver. What happens next? Gunfire, chaos, and screaming, and whilst this all may seem a little random, it might interest you to know that this is how some people view politics. Even more interesting might be the fact that this metaphor actually makes up the basis of a widely accepted theory in international relations: “political realism”

Hello, my name is Jamie, and my speech is on the subject of this theory, political realism, and its place in the 21st century. In particular, I’m going to be explaining:

Why political realism makes no sense in the modern world.

Now, for those here who don’t spend their lives hunched over books of political theory, political realism is a theory in international relations which states that world politics is always and necessarily a field of conflict among actors pursuing wealth and power. In particular, realist theories are usually based on three assumptions, that:

· People are self-interested and will always seek power

· Ideals and ethics are always counterproductive in geopolitics

· Humanity’s natural state is lawless anarchy

Now, political realism isn’t a new theory, and has been around for quite a while. In 1513, an Italian diplomat and philosopher by the name of Niccolò Machiavelli wrote The Prince, an instruction guide and philosophical treatise for new princes and royals in which Machiavelli’s key piece of advice was that “politics have no relation to morals”, and setting out what would become the basis of realist theory.

In the modern era, the theories of realists such as Hans Morgenthau are a little different, but their core values are the same, and realist theory can essentially be summarised as follows:

· International relations and geopolitics is primarily conducted by the world’s Great Powers, the United States, Russia, and China, for example.

· Geopolitics can, therefore, be seen as a metaphorical poker game between these Great Powers, with all the other peoples and nations of the world being the “chips” of the poker game to be traded and bid by the Great Powers in pursuit of more influence on the world stage.

· The players may come and go, but the game always remain the same.

Well, that’s all very well and good, but why should you care? I care because I’m a history-politics student and, admittedly, a bit of a nerd, but why should you? Well, political realism has been the basis for most foreign policy decisions throughout history ever since Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1513 and, with the increasing popularity of the views of realists like Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer after the beginning of the war in Ukraine last year, there is a chance that it will remain so for a long time after.

But that is something that I would like to challenge. I would argue that whilst it has made up the basis of international relations for hundreds of years, political realism ultimately makes no sense when applied to the modern world, and perhaps the easiest way to do this is to look at and critique the three guiding principles of realism to show that they ultimately make up a flawed and overly-simplistic world view.

Let’s start with perhaps the most important principle of realism, the twin ideas that:

People are self-interested and will always seek power.

And that:

Humanity’s natural state is lawless anarchy

Now, these two points have been debated for many, many years, and as such we are going to group them together due to their similarities. These ideas largely stem from the thinking of the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who described Humanity’s “state of nature” as a kind of “war of all against all”, a selfish and individualistic state in which people only seek out power and an advantage over their rivals, a bit like in Lord of the Flies, where, removed from adult supervision, the children slowly descend into a state of savagery. Hobbes then stated that geopolitics can also be described as that same “war of all against all”, in which nations act in any way they please, but this is a point that I would like to contest, as I don’t believe that it works, at least, not anymore.

Even if Humanity’s natural state is lawless anarchy, we must remember that Humanity and societies across the globe do not run based on this natural state. Indeed, Hobbes himself even suggested that this “natural state” disappears between individuals as soon as a system of government is established. What this means is that the institutions and societies that we have created actually build on our natural state and turn this anarchy into a codified and structured system, in which chaos is replaced by rules-based law and order, and this is something that is more or less universal across the world. In almost every society, for example, it is both morally and legally wrong to murder.

However, Hobbes did then argue nations, unlike people, will always act in a state of lawless anarchy because, unlike for their citizens, they have no higher power to impose order. Probably the simplest way to explain this in layman’s terms would be that without a teacher to supervise, twenty-five children in a classroom will act in a chaotic and barbaric manner until the teacher comes in to impose order. However, place twenty-five teachers at a drinking party, and all hell breaks loose, as there is no higher power to impose order.

But this is a point that I would stress does not work, at least, not any more. This is because almost every country in the world is now, at least theoretically, bound by the laws, rules, and guidelines set out by the United Nations, with Article 2 of the UN Charter dictating the rules which countries should follow in terms of international relations and affairs.

What I mean by all this is that geopolitics cannot simply be seen through the lens of Hobbes’ idea of “man’s natural state”, as this concept of lawless anarchy no longer governs the world stage, at least on a grand scale, with a majority of countries now playing by the UN’s rules. Whilst the poker game may have been played in an anarchic style in the past, it now has a judge, and this is something that realist thinking simply does not recognise.

These cynical assumptions aren’t the only flaws in realist thinking, though, and gaping problems can also be seen in principle number 2, the idea that:

Ideals are counterproductive in geopolitics

This notion makes up perhaps one of the most essential cornerstones of political realism, and this view of the world is not completely invalid, as throughout history some of the most impactful and important events have occurred due to leaders’ putting aside their personal and universal beliefs. However, I would argue that whilst this view was valid in the past, applying it to the here and now once again makes no sense, and this is largely due to the incredible importance that has been placed on ideals and ideology in recent years, which has subsequently had a huge impact shaping the world as we know it.

To see why ideals are not counterproductive, but actually beneficial, in modern geopolitics, one only has to look at regional power blocs such as the European Union. Founded in 1993, the EU was created to promote peace, security, and fundamental rights in Europe, which sounds a lot like an ideology to me. Given that the EU then went on to become perhaps one of the most influential power blocs in the world, I would see it as the perfect example of how ideals are not counterproductive in geopolitics, but are actually quite productive, especially when they are shared by numerous nation-states. Except of course in Britain, where Brexit means Brexit.

Yeah… that happened, didn’t it?

Anyway, when you look at things this way, trying to apply a realist view to geopolitics again makes no sense, as through this lens every country across the globe is stripped down to a simple, selfish, and power-hungry bloc, only seen in shades of black and white, which simply isn’t true, as it completely ignores the vital role of ideology and ideals in shaping how the world works. When one looks at the world this way, the poker game again becomes more complicated, because now the poker players aren’t simply just faceless, power-hungry players, but instead become ideologically-motivated individuals who play the game for different reasons.

So, bringing all of this together, what can we say about political realism as a concept in 2023? Well, I would say that for all the merit in realists’ attempts to boil down geopolitics to cold calculations of power-dynamics, ultimately it doesn’t work, at least not anymore. Political realists try to say that the poker game of geopolitics is played in what could only be described as the lawless Wild West, but it isn’t. If anything, the game, if there is one at all, is now played in a Vegas casino, with a judge and a set of rules that limit the players’ tendency to shoot each other when they get angry, and the players who engage in the game are shown to be more complicated too. In other words, the poker game is infinitely more complicated than realists would like to imagine, and as such the theories of realists like Kissinger and Mearsheimer simply do not work when applied to the current state of geopolitics.

In short, therefore, whilst political realism may have been one of the cornerstones of international relations for hundreds of years, its practicality as a world view makes no sense in the modern era. Machiavelli has, after all, been dead for 496 years now, so perhaps its time for the thinking of his model prince to be buried as well.

Thank you.