Social Science

As Dr. King mentioned in class, the task of social scientist is not to study the minutia of a single country's inner-workings, but instead the patterns and trends born out the actions of multiple states. By keeping an eye on “the social”, the social scientists is able to interpret general behaviors of humanity. He/she cannot be concerned with individuals, just their contribution as part of the greater whole. This understanding of societies general trends enables the social scientists to better understand the driving forces of societies.
The individual concerned with the singular actor is the psychologist, the student of the individual's behavior. As students of foreign policy, this a striking distinction between two different paths Is a foreign policy expert expected to be both psychologist and social scientist, and if so, which takes precedence? While at first glance the two seem reconcilable, there actually exists a significant problem in their coexistence. Consider the situation of an outbreak of fighting in Baghdad. The social scientist would consider this an event common to most civil wars, while the psychologist would instead think of it as the work of an specific member of the insurgency, an example of this persons particular habits and behavior. How do these two different assessments of a situation change one's reaction to what has happened, their solutions? Social science views ones actions as a piece of the general trend, but psychology demands the primacy of the individual- trends are only a macroscopic snapshot. Though not necessarily mutually exclusive, two differing world views at some level demand a foreign policy advisor to make their own choice of the trend or the individual.