SoDiIR · Social Distance in International Relations

Social Distance in International Relations

International solidarity is selective. Whilst common sense says that our moral obligation to help people extents equally to all, SoDiIR’s expectation is that social distance— the extent to which we relate to, or identify with others—creates socio-emotional hurdles and impacts people’s engagement with the hardship of others. Bluntly put, people do not care equally for all human suffering and this influences their, and therewith countries’, political priorities. We see this today in the ways people empathize with the victims of wars in, e.g., Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, and Sudan and the different foreign policy stances that states develop. SoDiIR, aimed to uncover, analyse, and think through the consequences and role of social distance and the political biases this introduces to aid narratives and national foreign policy. The universality is an important pillar under the international system. However, whilst it exists on paper, practice shows the implementation is selective and that empathy and aid do not reach everybody equally. Considering contemporary polarization around refugees, migration, and related questions (racism, xenophobia, islamophobia), exploring the experienced social distance in societies is a worthwhile endeavor. Moreover, introducing social distance to foreign policy analysis enhances the study of social distance itself and demonstrates its value for political science. Lastly, a better comprehension of the social and emotional dynamics behind the support for interventions will facilitate the planning, organization, communication of interventions that are to take place in regions physically and socially remote from the most likely donors. Moreover, giving more weight to emotional appraisal in political science and raising awareness of the role of emotions in politics allows to better understand contemporary world politics and to close the perceived gap between political science and political practices. SoDiIR had two central research objectives: a) To show how socio-emotional distance impacts people’s perceptions of, and reactions towards, international crises and catastrophes. b) To theorise and analyse how such micro-level and personal responses are translated into foreign policy. Unfortunately, time proved short and changing political circumstances of direct importance to the project led to a change in the project focus. Although a lot of progress was made and significant additional funding to continue and expand the project secured, conclusions cannot yet be drawn. Below, I explain what happened.

Data: CORDIS, © European Union