Published on December 05, 2005

While studying for my undergraduate degree several years ago, my learned professors warned us that the girls in political science were the hardest to get.

“They know too much about the world to be tricked easily,” one of them said.

They probably would, I thought, if they paid any attention.

It’s interesting how much you can actually learn about relationships from political science.

While doing research here in England I kept thinking about how each of the main theoretical schools of international political economy offered a deep insight into romantic relationships.

I thought I’d share them and, if they are of no use in capturing your dream date, at least you’ll have something exceptionally cool to start talking to her about.

Ever wondered why the rich, the handsome and the powerful get all the prettiest girls? It’s probably quite obvious already, but putting it into the framework of the neo-realist theory certainly puts a more intelligent spin on it.

In one of the interpretations of the neo-realist framework, the man is the most important person in the relationship and the gains, either perceived or real, are the important bargaining chip.

The rich, handsome and powerful get the girl because she has vested interests in obtaining his wealth, looks and social connections. This kind of relationship is fickle because the girl can also switch to another guy as soon as she has an opportunity for either an absolute or a relative gain.

If she doesn’t, she could well turn into a peripheral figure in a “dependency” relationship and the man will be able to treat her like dirt. Beware the neo-realist and the dependency relationship.

Sometimes, the intelligent guy also gets the girl and this would probably be the mainstay of the neo-liberals. As we live in a society where going to prestigious universities, being educated abroad and progressing quickly in one’s work shapes one’s perceptions of how successful someone will be, intelligence and hard work are important.

In other words, wealth and connections may be relevant with neo-liberals, but institutions such as one’s family and the laws in a society one lives in will constrain the abuse of such powers. In cases like this, the girl will be attracted to intelligence, but possibly because her parents have told her that intelligence is an important thing.

She may have been educated at a top university or her workplace might value progress by merit beyond other assets. Expect the neo-liberal lover to value you according to what society values the most.

The romantics among you will be attracted to the social-constructivist school, which puts an emphasis on how ideas and identities make you who you are. I know a girl, for example, who values faithfulness beyond money, power or intelligence because her father is an unyielding womaniser.

Despite her wealth and social connections, she will date anyone poorer or less powerful, as long as he can prove to her that he will love her forever. To the socially constructed lover, who you are and how you think about relationships will form the future of your romantic relationship.

These three schools of thought are not the entire ontology of the theory, but they represent a good example of how relationships can be analysed. The important thing is to know exactly what kind of relationship you’re in and where you stand in such a relationship.

Each of the theories offer you a perspective of why your relationship is such a failure or so successful. From there, you can either improve or maintain your relationship.

Send your comment to relations@nationgroup.com.

Post your comment to this story here