Academic Paper Example

¶ … Contact With a Sentient Extraterrestrial Alien Species

I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. -- U.S. President Ronald, Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, 42nd General Assembly, September 21, 1987

As the epigraph above indicates, even national leaders recognize the potential for first contact with a sentient extraterrestrial alien species and its implications for humankind. In fact, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute has been actively scanning the heavens for the past 3 decades and many scientists and even theologians believe that it is only a matter of time before humanity finally establishes contact with a sentient extraterrestrial alien species. Whether this first contact is in the form of a beamed message or a so-called "close encounter" where humans actually encounter aliens, this historic event will fundamentally transform humanity's views about the appropriateness of the existing geopolitical sphere, particularly if such an encounter is perceived as a threat. This paper provides an explanation concerning structural realism and social constructivism and how these theoretical perspectives can be applied to such a seminal event to predict the most likely outcomes. An evaluation of these theoretical perspectives to determine the extent to which they complement or overlap each other and which provides the more convincing prediction is followed by a summary of the research and important findings concerning the application of structural realism and social constructivism to the first contact with a sentient extraterrestrial alien species in the conclusion.

Review and Discussion

Structural realism. According to Jakobsen, Kenneth Waltz's structural realism "starts from a simple set of assumptions [and] seeks to explain how states, in particular the most powerful ones, behave, and how they interact with each other on the international arena" (2013, p. 2). Structural realism as originally proposed by Waltz is so termed because "realism [or] science describes the world as it really is" and "structural because the realities identified are not kinds of stuff or objects, but structures" (Goldin 2016, p. 697). The "structures" involved in structural realism relate to the "anarchic nature of the international system" and are regarded as "the single most important factor affecting all other behavior" (Vasquez 1997, p. 901). There are two issues about Waltz's notion of the structures of the international system as follows:

1. The international system's ordering principle is anarchy. This first issue means that there are no higher authorities than sovereign states in the international system (i.e., there is no single world government in charge); and,

2. The distribution of capabilities (or power) across the units inhabiting the international system (states differ dramatically in their capabilities or power and these differences influence the manner in which they behave (Jakobsen 2013, p. 4).

These two foregoing notions highlight the realist origins of structural realism concerning the perceived "realities" of the units and structure of the international system as understood by human actors. According to Buzan and Little, there are three basic issues that reflect structural realism's realist traditions as follows:

1. A continued insistence on the primacy of the political sphere;

2. Its focus on the state as the most important defining unit of the international system; and,

3. The acceptance of Waltz's basic definitional framework for international structure (1993, pp. 10-11).

The basic definitional framework for the international structure proposed by Waltz includes the notion that structures are generated through the continuous interactions between the units that comprise them, in this case sovereign states (Buzan & Little 1993). From a structural realism perspective, then, there is always a struggle going on over scarce resources between sovereign states and the integrity of national borders must be countered with appropriate defensive measures, otherwise nations run the risk of threatening their very survival. For instance, Frieden, Lake and Schultz report that, "Realists claim that, in anarchy, states compete with other states for power and security. The nature of the competition is viewed in zero-sum terms; in other words, more for one actor means less for another" (p. 21).

Because there are finite amounts of resources available, the zero-sum assertion is accurate but the potential always exists for states to cooperate in ways that are mutually beneficial rather than parry over them. Nevertheless, the historical record contains countless examples of states going to war over scarce resources and arbitrary national boundaries that are drawn only on human-made political maps.

Social constructivism. Social constructivists hold that some if not all aspects of the human condition are socially constructed (Kukla 2000). In this regard, Ghica reports that, "The main tenet of social constructivism is that international actors, like humans, develop in a socially constructed world, hence the label" (p. 234). Like structural realism, social constructivism also builds on other past theories and traditions. For instance, Roberts-Miller (2002) notes that, "Initially associated with Thomas Kuhn in philosophy of science, social constructivism is a response to the correspondence theory of truth, and autonomous self presumed by various traditions in Anglo-American philosophy, especially positivism" (p. 97).

From a social constructivism perspective, then, the international system is shaped by socially constructed, which is to say arbitrary, concepts that have a powerful influence on the behavior of sovereign states. In this regard, Frieden et al. point out that, "According to constructivist philosophy, the social world is not a given: it is not something 'out there' that exists independently of the thoughts and ideas of the people involved in it" (p. 211). In other words, it is the social construction of reality rather than reality itself that is the main feature of the international system. As Frieden et al. emphasize, "Constructivists... argue that the most important aspect of international relations is social, not material" (p. 209). In sum, then, social constructivism represents a useful framework in which to gain a better understanding of the "how's and why's" of international relations between sovereign states.

Application of Theories to First Contact with a Sentient Extraterrestrial Alien Species

Evaluation

Structural realism. There has been increasing interest on the part of the scientific community concerning the very real potential for first contact with a sentient extraterrestrial alien species (hereinafter alternatively "ET") as well as growing concern among national policymakers in many countries about what form this first contact would assume. Although there is no consensus about what approach to first contact would be best for humanity, there is a general recognition that even if the first contact was benign, it would have enormous implications for the human race (Brin 2010). More troubling, of course, is the potential for ETs to have conquest in mind as they meet with a less-developed species. The historical record is also replete with examples of civilizations that fell to the stronger military might of other civilizations and the potential for the same scenario to play out in a First Contact situation is a very real possibility.

Against this backdrop, structural realism is particularly well suited for assessing the effects of the first contact with ETs because it focuses on the implications of external threats to national security. For instance, according to Frieden et al., "Realist theory operates according to the assumption that, domestically, the problem of order and security is largely solved. However, on the 'outside,'... insecurity, dangers and threats to the very existence of the state loom large" (p. 21). Traditionally, these external threats to national security have related to other sovereign nations and more recently to non-state actors such as terrorist organizations (Clunan & Trinkunas 2010). In this context, national security relates to "the effort state officials take to protect their national interests, usually understood to be physical survival, territorial integrity, and continuation of the political regime and economic system" (Clunan & Trinkunas 2010, p. 282).

Purely human-forged concepts of "territorial integrity," however, would lose their meaning entirely if the whole human race was faced with an extraterrestrial threat, and this type of threat has become the focus of policymakers at the superpower level. As President Reagan's speech to the United Nations cited in the introductory epigraph made clear, geopolitical boundaries would likely evaporate virtually overnight and the diverse peoples of earth would come together as one, at least until the alien invasion was successfully countered or failed. This same type of reaction to alien invasion on the part of humanity has been witnessed time and again over the millennia, and as recently as Afghanistan where the warlords only stopped fighting each other long enough to repel the foreign invaders. Indeed, even if the first contact with ETs was ultimately determined to be beneficial to humankind in some fashion, the entire human race would also be lined up to try to gain the most benefit from these alien technologies that could include limitless energy, light-speed travel and cures for all known deadly diseases that have plagued humankind rather than allowing a single nation to keep all of the benefits of ET technologies for itself.

In addition, when applied to threats from ETs, structural realism indicates that the international community would likely band together to protect earth and all of its inhabitants regardless of geopolitical borders. As Frieden et al. point out, "Defensive realists emphasize that if any state becomes too powerful, balancing will occur. Specifically, the other great powers will build up their militaries and form a balancing coalition that will leave the aspiring hegemon at least less secure, and maybe even destroy it" (p. 80).

Social constructivism. On its face, social constructivism would appear to be less well suited to developing an understanding concerning the response by the international community to first contact with ETs. A closer examination, though, shows that social constructivism can provide some fresh insights concerning the likelihood of some responses over others based on socially constructed views about the event.

Although the potential exists for one or more sovereign nations to attempt to forge an alliance with ET invaders if they were found to be a threat, the main tenets of social constructivism would suggest that the social construction of the collective threat represented by extraterrestrials would force all nations to come together to develop a collective defensive response. As Ghica points out, "For constructivists, although the material world exists, it has a meaning. This meaning is socially constructed, develops through social interaction and may be different for different observers. Social interaction generates structures of collective meaning" (2013, p. 734).

In this case, the meaning of an ET invasion would relate to the social construction of the collective threat this event held for humankind and how this external threat was conceptualized by the international system. An important point made by Goldman (2002), though, is that a socially constructed view about an alien invasion would not necessarily mean that the underlying realities that were involved are negated or ignored, but rather only that these social constructions would be subject to verification, something that might be needed if first contact was limited to representatives from a single nation. After all, tens of thousands of people around the world have claimed to have encountered ETs over the centuries but the vast majority of these reports have either been essentially ignored by the mainstream scientific community or dismissed by the intelligence agencies of countries around the world. Given the enormity of an actual verifiable first contact with ETs, though, such verification would be even more necessary in order to mount a unified response of any type pursuant to any theoretical framework, including social constructivism. In this regard, Goldman emphasizes that, "Social constructivism poses no challenge to objectivism about facts or truth. That representations are socially constructed is compatible with there being mind-independent and community-independent facts that render such representations true or false" (p. 196). When confronted with the harsh reality of a potentially malevolent extraterrestrial foe, it is reasonable to conclude that social constructivism would not only acknowledge the social construction of the threat but emphasize the need for a unified response to a collective threat to global security.

What is especially interesting in this entire debate is the fact that human reality is based on a mere blip in time that does not take into account the billions of years that have preceded their lives or the vastness of the universe surrounding the blue planet called Earth. Regardless of the theoretical framework that is used to analyze the ultimate effects of a first contact with a sentient extraterrestrial alien species, this contact would be tantamount to a repudiation of Judeo-Christian traditions and provide support for the numerous other religious dogma of the world that hold aliens have not only visited the earth in the past, but have tried to shape to their own ends. Structural realists would likely argue that the nations of the world would quickly disregard the lines in the sand to rally around a common global flag. Although social constructivists might require longer to arrive at this global consensus, it is reasonable to suggest that even these hold-outs would come around to a common cause if presented with sufficiently compelling evidence concerning the reality of the ET threat.

The two common themes that emerged from the review of the literature concerning the application of structural realism and social constructivism to the increasingly timely and relevant issue of a first encounter with a sentient extraterrestrial alien species concerned most especially the response on the part of the international system (e.g., structural realism) and the conceptualization of the threat among the international community (e.g., social constructivism). To the extent that the former theoretical framework is applied to the first encounter with ETs will likely be the extent to which humanity is able to come together to appropriately respond to either an extraterrestrial threat or a welcomed ally who can provide humankind with a quid pro quo type of first encounter. In fact, many analysts agree that any species that is capable of interstellar travel will share at least some of the altruistic qualities that the earthly animal kingdom rarely demonstrates (e.g., some mammals such as orcas, dogs or bears) or more commonly among the human race (e.g., foreign aid and nongovernmental organizations), and any such species will want to benefit from their expenditure of time and resources.