Love, Geopolitics, and Fleeces

Jason's father, King Aeson, had his throne stolen by his brother. Jason, once old enough, challenged his uncle for the throne; his uncle promised Jason the throne if Jason could bring back the golden fleece. Jason game and so assembled a crew, found a ship, named the ship Argo and its crew Argonauts, and set off towards Colchis. He arrived safely, though only after overcoming many obstacles, and asked Colchis' king for the Golden Fleece. Once again, Jason had to meet certain conditions: this time, he was to yoke two fire-breathing bulls, plow a field with them, then plant dragon-teeth (which turn into soldiers who attack the hand that planted them). Jason did so with the assistance of Medea, the king of Colchis' daughter; she also helped him get past a dragon guarding the fleece; all this done, Medea, Jason, and co. set off for home. Medea, for reasons unknown, took her brother along,chopped him up, and threw the pieces of him into the sea to slow her dad's pursuit; the gods were understandably perturbed and really messed with the return journey, but after some praying and magic, Jason and friends returned home.

I think it's interesting that love as a geopolitical factor has declined dramatically in importance from Classical times. It's tough to know how much of a factual basis stories like these or the Iliad had, but at least in the popular narrative, love was a common and justifiable reason for actions as significant as war. Now, we're a lot more careful in regards to when we start wars, and I doubt that love would be seen as a legitimate reason for war (jus ad bellum).

On its face, that's a little puzzling. It seems like in the past, with worse systems of transportation and communication, folks from any given country (even including royals) would be unlikely to meet, let alone get to know well, many people from any other country. In that sense, one would expect more social elements in geopolitics now. I think, though, that cultural factors--ignoring the major political influences--diminish the importance of love in modern geopolitics (and I think that's a good thing).

Social hierarchies are generally less rigid than in the past. That means that there's no particular need for a country's leader to find another person of equal status--another country's royal--for marriage. This suggests that societies have become more egalitarian over time, which I think is probably true (post Neolithic Revolution).

That said, I think the political influences are more important than the social influences in diminishing the importance of love in geopolitics, I just didn't feel like going into them.

You may note that I've said nothing of revenge. Revenge is complicated.

Source: http://astripedarmchair.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/the-geopolitics-of-emotion-by-dominique-moisi-thoughts/

Interesting subtitle--how has the role of popular emotion in geopolitics evolved?