Tag: Lord of the Rings

Trump and the Fall of Númenor—a comment from a sad political scientist

sauraonThis is a guest post by Eric Grynaviski, an Associate Professor of Political Science at International Affairs at George Washington University. He is the author of Constructive Illusions (Cornell, 2014) .He studies sociological approaches to cooperation and conflict, and international ethics.

Over the last few days, protestors have taken to the streets to combat what they believe is an evil power that will soon occupy the White House. The problem of evil has featured in rhetoric about this election, in fact, for months, as featured in the Washington Post commentary on the election. The tropes “politics is evil,” “Hillary is evil,” and “Trump is evil” have a new significance when people are confused and disoriented by Trump’s surprising win.

Continue reading


The State of the Art in the Social Science of Pop Culture

Slate posted a piece on the academic study of pop culture.  It found that academics studied Buffy the Vampire Slayer most.  Well, actually, no, it found that more folks studied the Buffy than the Matrix, the Simpsons, Aliens or The Wire.

This led to a Facebook discussion of selection bias.  We can discuss the merits of these five and ponder why the Simpsons did so poorly (perhaps we need a consistent plot progression?), or why the Wire is under-valued yet again.  That the 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies sucked so much that they sucked all the air out of the studying the Matrix enterprise? But what is most obvious is that this “study” is that it ignored the big, enduring elements of pop culture that we have been obsessing about for years/generations: Star Wars, Star Trek (which is tossed off as an side), Lord of the Rings, and, more recently, Harry Potter.  Using just the Berkeley source, Star Wars appears to be ahead of Buffy. 

Using scholar.google:

  • Buffy produces 6k hits; 
  • Star Trek: 30k; 
  • Star Wars: 51k (affected by Reagan’s naming of the Strategic Defense Initiative);
  • Lord of the Rings: 22k; 
  • Harry Potter: 32k.

To get a more systematic view, I used Publish or Perish, which relies on scholar google to build comparisons. If there are over a 100 papers, it just does the stats for one hundred (maybe I am lousy at setting the parameters, but this is a blogpost, not a submission to a journal).  There is plenty of error, of course, but there are some systematic patterns.

Papers Cites Cites per paper Cites per year H index* Most cited piece
Buffy TVS 100 4303 43 269 28 836
Harry Potter 83 6770 81 339 43 1296
Lord of the Rings 100 8339 83 83 33 1961
Star Trek 100 7192 72 153 37 926
Star Wars 100 9915 99 275 37 816
Simpsons 100 3164 32 44 24 507
The Matrix Trilogy 100 973 10 22 14 100
Alien Movies 100 370 4 2 9 54

Star Wars has the most citations but probably the most error given the aforementioned SDI bias.  What this does show is that the classics (old) double more or less Buffy while the new (Harry) has 50% more citations.  In terms of which papers have the most impact on average, again Star Wars  prevails but Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter lead the rest (and probably have fewer accidental cites along the way).  Harry Potter has the highest rate of cites per year since all of JK’s stuff came out since 1997.  This produces the highest H-index.  Buffy performs quite well, certainly outclassing the Matrix because, well, quality does matter after all.   The Simpsons do pretty well.  Aliens?  Scary but not worthy of citations.  Star Trek is a steady performer, among the leaders across the border, and with fewer false positives than Star Wars.  The Wire, well, hard to measure since even restricting Publish or Perish searches to social sciences gives way too many non-The Wire hits (same goes for Breaking Bad and Mad Men).  I guess folks will have to settle for The Wire remaining the best TV program in most folks’ minds and perhaps the best application of social science in a TV show.

Aside from the lesson that Slate does apparently poor pop social science, what can we learn from this exercise (other than my priorities are lousy–I should be doing something other than this–including my summer project of finally watching season one of Buffy)?  That we live in a golden age of pop culture and its over-analysis?  That Harry beats Buffy?  That Dan Nexon should edit a sequel to the previous HP volume?  That Star Wars and Star Trek fans have something else over which to fight?  That the Matrix really did suck?  What conclusions do the readers have?

Of course, one could argue that I have some selection bias myself–that this was hardly a systematic study of pop culture.  There might be other books/tv programs/movies that get more analysis than these.**  But I did do due diligence, web 2.0 style by crowdsourcing first. Certainly, one can do this better if one is writing a dissertation.  And surely someone is.

*  from Publish orPerish: H-index aims to measure the cumulative impact of a researcher’s output by looking at the amount of citation his/her work has received. Publish or Perish calculates and displays the h index proper, its associated proportionality constant a (from Nc,tot = ah2), and the rate parameter m (from h ~ mn, where n is the number of years since the first publication).

** Sorry, Charli, you don’t want to know how BSG did.  Let’s just say, BSG might be able to get tenure but not promotion to Full Professor.


Teaching IR Theory Through LOTR

Picked up my copy of International Studies Perspectives yesterday to discover Abigail Ruane and Patrick James’ article “The International Relations of Middle Earth: Learning from The Lord of the Rings leading the “Pedagogy and the Discipline” Section.

Just another example of why ISP is my favorite IR journal. I read the article with gusto. The piece “overviews how J.R.R. Tolkien’s acclaimed triology is relevant to learing about IR and then presents a number of ‘cuts’ into using LOTR to inform IR teaching of both problem solving and critical theory.” These include relating IR’s three “Great Debates” and what the authors describe as three “waves” of feminist theory to specific characters from Tolkien’s trilogy.

It was certainly the most fun I’ve had reading an academic journal in awhile. (Especially considering I just watched the film with my son for the first time, so orcs, wizards and second breakfast are on my brain.) Much of it was brilliant. Saruman represents Machiavellanism; Elrond Kantianism. Boromir is a defensive realist; Gimli and his absolute-gains-seeking dwarf kin are a bunch of neoliberal institutionalists. Hobbits, it turns out, are constructivists because they live peacefully in a near-anarchy; critical theory is expressed through Treebeard, the Ent spokesperson who is more concerned with the destruction of the marginalized trees by both sides in the militaristic confrontation between good and evil than for the outcome of the battle, and is thus “not altogether on anybody’s side.”

However, I didn’t agree with all the theoretical interpretations. I found the treatment of feminist IR vacuous (plus how could a serious gender analysis of LOTR omit reference to Arwen’s character?) And I wonder if the author’s interpretation of Gandalf as exhibiting “bounded rationality” is correct. Still, the argument is useful for serious students of IR theory, if only because it gets one asking these questions.

Mostly, though, I was left a bit baffled by the pedagogical relevance of the approach described. A pedagogical piece, after all, is not supposed to teach us IR theorists something about IR theory (though it does). Rather, it’s supposed to teach us something about teaching IR (presumably to undergraduates?). Frankly, I have a hard time imagining myself assigning all the LOTR novels in an IR class at whatever level. There would scarcely be time to read anything else; surely other texts matter too.

What if, instead, such a teaching method relied on the films? This seems more plausible, in the sense that I could see myself actually doing it. Yet the roadmap in the article seems heavily focused on the books themselves as texts, many of whose characters never appear in the films. I read the pieces yearning for guidance as to how in practical terms to integrate these ideas without my IR class turning into a class on “Science Fiction and Politics.” (Which don’t get me wrong, I’d love to teach. But which would be quite different than a class in IR per se.)

I wonder if the authors could propose the same or a similar class plan if relying solely on the film versions; or if they can suggest a realistic way to integrate the books into a reasonably conventional IR syllabus; if they could provide context as to what level of course they envision such a discussion in; or concrete examples as to how this worked or didn’t work inthe classroom.

Anyway, I put my ISP down smiling and engaged, yet yearning for some concrete guidance.



© 2021 Duck of Minerva

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑