Political Theory Is Not a Game

• Author: John W. Schiemann
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912911434417
• Date: 01 March 2012
• Published date: 01 March 2012
• Subject Matter: Exchange

434417PRQXXX10.1177/1065912911434
417SchiemannPolitical Research Quarterly
Political Research Quarterly
65(1) 28 –33
Political Theory
© 2012 University of Utah
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Is Not a Game: On the Dangers
DOI: 10.1177/1065912911434417
http://prq.sagepub.com
of Detached and Inhuman
Normative Theory
John W. Schiemann1
According to Howes, my article is “a wildly inappropri-
would talk. Such a model, whether in the guise of the
ate application of game theory” and so constitutes a proj-
television program 24, in the mind of Dick Cheney or
ect that is “dubious at best and dangerous at worst”
SERE psychologists, or in a work of political philosophy
because it “invites policy makers and social scientists to
such as Howes’s here, is a fantasy. As a result, both per-
use formal models to improve or perfect torture,” making
spectives “obscure the fundamental character” (i.e., what
it “conducive to bureaucratic violence” (Howes 2012,
actually happens empirically) of interrogational torture
21, 20, 23). I respond to each set of claims, starting with
(Howes 2012, 20).3
the former, before reflecting very briefly on what these
In addition to beatings, burning, and waterboarding,
considerations have to say about the place of formal mod-
Henri Alleg was electrocuted during his interrogation by
els in normative political theory.
French paratroopers in Algeria in 1957. Variously attach-
ing the clips to his finger, chest, ear, groin, and the palette
Human Agency and
of his mouth, they caused in the last instance his jaw to
lock for a time and his eyes to feel as if they were being
Interrogational Torture
pushed out of his head from the inside (Alleg [1958]
The application of a formal game theoretic model to
2006, 56-57). And yet, he recalls, “stupefied as I was by
interrogational torture is dangerous in Howes’s sense
the blows and the tortures I had undergone, one single
only if game theory is even applicable to the question of
idea was still clear in my mind: ‘Tell them nothing, don’t
interrogational torture and its effectiveness, something
help them in any way.’ I didn’t open my mouth” (Alleg
Howes rejects in the course of the first section of his
[1958] 2006, 63).
reply and later in his discussion of the will.1 Following
Now although Howes does not say what is left to a
Scarry (1985) and others, he asserts that the pain and
human being after the comprehensive destructive effects of
domination in torture are so agency destroying, reason
torture, nor can it be inferred from his alternative model of
destroying, information destroying, strategy destroying,
human action, since he offers none, he characterizes resis-
even world destroying that they preclude any reasonable
tance to interrogational torture as “the sheer force of will”
conception of choice, preference, calculation, or strategy.
(Howes 2012, 22). I return to this point in a moment. I first
As a result, the torture victim does not even possess the
want to point out that it is clear from torture victims’ own
“ability to know what game is being played” (Howes
accounts that they value things—avoiding pain, protecting
2012, 21) and so “rational, strategic interaction is, by
information, convincing the interrogator that they are inno-
definition, made impossible” (Howes 2012, 24).
cent—and order them in particular ways. The fact that
This model of “utter domination” (Howes 2012, 24)
“torturers may want to elicit some words or behaviors from
by the torturer is almost precisely the caricature of inter-
their victims” (Howes 2012, 28), as Howes is grudgingly
rogational torture presumed by its strongest proponents.2
willing to acknowledge, indicates they have goals too.
Torturers know how to inflict pain so that all room for
Victims by their own accounts think of themselves as hav-
agency, calculation, strategizing, and choice is removed.
ing at least two actions, opening or not opening the mouth,
The torturer controls the environment so completely,
breaks the victim down so thoroughly, that he or she does
1Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, NJ, USA
exactly what the torturer desires. The will of the torturer
becomes the will of the tortured. This is exactly what the
Corresponding Author:
designers of the Bush interrogational torture program
John W. Schiemann, Department of Social Sciences & History, Fairleigh
Dickinson University, M-MS3-02, 285 Madison Avenue, Madison, NJ
believed: they would “break” detainees who thought they
07940, USA
were strong and could hold out into weak detainees who
Email: jws@fdu.edu

---

Schiemann
29
to paraphrase Henri Alleg. The same is true of interroga-
torture insofar as detainees possess it or are moved by it
tors in their selection of whether or not to torture. Finally,
to different degrees, because it affects their behavior. The
both sides understand, even if imperfectly and under
model recognizes both the will and how it varies over
uncertainty, how those actions lead to outcomes.
people using the ordering of –i and –k without reducing
All of this is starkly clear from testimonials from tor-
the will to that ordering.
ture victims across the world and through time. Consider
again Henri Alleg. After electrocuting him with a mag-
Promoting Bureaucratic Violence
neto and failing to elicit any information, his torturers
threatened to bring his wife from France and torture her.
What makes the application in my article dangerous,
Alleg reports that “in this nightmare, it was only with the
according to Howes, is that it “invites policy makers and
greatest difficulty that I was able to separate the menace I
social scientists to use formal models to improve or perfect
had to fear from the blackmailer’s bluff” (Alleg [1958]
torture” (Howes 2012, 20) and so is “conducive to bureau-
2006, 58). He later rejected an opportunity to commit sui-
cratic violence” (Howes 2012, 23). Rather than issue an
cide (though he suspects his captors may have deliber-
invitation, however, my article responds to one: the
ately created that opportunity) because the idea that his
implicit model of interrogational torture defended by the
captors would think he...