None of these ideas are the stuff of great geopolitical doctrines

English translation: (while) these ideas are not currently considered to be part of serious geopolitical doctrines...

GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
English term or phrase:None of these ideas are the stuff of great geopolitical doctrines
Selected answer:(while) these ideas are not currently considered to be part of serious geopolitical doctrines...
Entered by: Yvonne Gallagher

15:55 Nov 8, 2018
English language (monolingual) [PRO]
Government / Politics
English term or phrase: None of these ideas are the stuff of great geopolitical doctrines
Hello everyone,

From the book Thank You for Being Late by Thomas Friedman.

Captain Phillips

None of these ideas are the stuff of great geopolitical doctrines; but the age of accelerations will be a graveyard for fancy big ideas. When the necessary is impossible but the impossible is necessary, when no power wants to own the World of Disorder but, increasingly, no power can ignore it, it is going to take these hybrid combinations of drones and walls, aircraft carriers and Peace Corps volunteers, plus chickens, gardens, and Webs, to begin to create stability in the age of accelerations.

Since we began this chapter with a TV sitcom that foreshadowed the future, let’s end with a movie that highlights the present—and with any luck doesn’t foreshadow the future. It’s the film Captain Phillips, which was based on the very real 2009 hijacking of the unarmed U.S. container ship Maersk Alabama by a gang of Somali pirates in a speedboat. The film centers around the struggle between the Alabama’s commanding officer, Captain Richard Phillips, played by Tom Hanks, and the Somali pirate captain, Muse—played by Barkhad Abdi, a Somali actor who was living as a refugee in Minnesota—who takes Phillips and his ship hostage. The Somali pirates seize the ship while it is transiting the Indian Ocean off East Africa. While interrogating the Boston-bred Phillips and learning of his background, Muse nicknames him “Irish.”

Does the phrase in question imply that no great geopoliical doctrines contains these ideas?
Or does it mean anything else?

Thank you.
Mikhail Korolev
Local time: 12:29
(while) these ideas are not currently considered to be part of serious geopolitical doctrines...
Explanation:
perhaps they should be as
"the age of accelerations will be a graveyard for fancy big ideas"

None of the other answers have taken on this nuance, stemming from the second part of the sentence, which basically implies that the author considers it a mistake that these ideas are NOT taken seriously at the moment and that they are Not forming an integral part of major geopolitical policies or doctrines.

"...these hybrid combinations of drones and walls, aircraft carriers and Peace Corps volunteers, plus chickens, gardens, and Webs" will be used in the future "to begin to create stability in the age of accelerations".

or

"You need to juggle drones and walls where you must; invest in chickens, gardens, and schools where you can; amplify islands of decency wherever you find them; deter competing superpowers...."
in other words, sometimes it's necessary to think outside the box and oincorporate commonplace, seemingly ordinary ideas into modern geopolitics the

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 20 hrs (2018-11-09 12:43:28 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

put more simply

I think the author is saying that perhaps it's time to think about incorporating more ordianary, commonplace ideas (Peace Corps, chickens, gardens etc.) into geopolitics instead of relying on the major geopolitical doctrrines used till now. A mix of ideas is increasingly called for in the current climate, not just the grandiose ideas and conceptual frameworks of previous/current geopolitics

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 20 hrs (2018-11-10 12:08:35 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Glad to have helped
Selected response from:

Yvonne Gallagher
Ireland
Local time: 09:29
Grading comment
Many thanks to everyone.
Thank you, Yvonne.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED
4 +2These aren't mega-concepts needing to be incorporated in major geopolitical doctrines
B D Finch
4The aforementioned ideas can in no way constitute the basis of serious geopolitical doctrines.
Robert Forstag
4no great geopoliical doctrines contains these ideas
Omar Al-Awady
4All these ideas are mediocre or do not belong to great geopolitical doctrines
Lisa Jane
4(while) these ideas are not currently considered to be part of serious geopolitical doctrines...
Yvonne Gallagher
3Great political doctrines don't deal with these ideas
Darius Saczuk


Discussion entries: 2





  

Answers


7 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5
none of these ideas are the stuff of great geopolitical doctrines
Great political doctrines don't deal with these ideas


Explanation:
P

Darius Saczuk
United States
Local time: 05:29
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in PolishPolish, Native in EnglishEnglish
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

8 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
none of these ideas are the stuff of great geopolitical doctrines
The aforementioned ideas can in no way constitute the basis of serious geopolitical doctrines.


Explanation:
The basic idea is that the ideas in question (which were presumably discussed prior to the extract you posted) can in no way be taken seriously as the basis of (or product of - meaning is unclear) serious geopolitical doctrines.

Friedman seems to be implying here that such ideas are actually quite shoddy. It is like when you say that "so-and-so is certainly no Einstein" you are not only saying that he is not a genius, but that he may be rather dimwitted.

Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 05:29
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 24
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

8 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
none of these ideas are the stuff of great geopolitical doctrines
no great geopoliical doctrines contains these ideas


Explanation:
This is how I understood the phrase. And It could mean that these ideas are so essential that no great geopolitical doctrines would claim it, or that these ideas aren't a part of any great geopolitical doctrines (may it's too weak, or maybe that's just how things are).

read the ideas again and chose the appropriate meaning.

Omar Al-Awady
Egypt
Local time: 11:29
Native speaker of: Arabic
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

14 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
none of these ideas are the stuff of great geopolitical doctrines
All these ideas are mediocre or do not belong to great geopolitical doctrines


Explanation:
The author thinks that all these ideas are not to be included in the categories of "big ideas" or "great geopolitical doctrines".


Lisa Jane
Italy
Local time: 10:29
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish, Native in ItalianItalian
PRO pts in category: 4
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 hr   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +2
none of these ideas are the stuff of great geopolitical doctrines
These aren't mega-concepts needing to be incorporated in major geopolitical doctrines


Explanation:
I understand it to mean that Friedman isn't claiming that these are the sort of concepts that require an over-arching geopolitical doctrine in order to be implemented. So, he's saying that they can be implemented within existing systems. To rephrase: "You don't need a revolution, just get on with it and do something useful."

B D Finch
France
Local time: 10:29
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 18

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Shekhar Banerjee
12 hrs
  -> Thanks Shekhar

agree  Charles Davis: I've been out of touch and the party's over, but I'm sure you're right: the implication is that great geopolitical doctrines are over-rated: small is beautiful. He actually says that fancy big ideas are doomed.
1 day 13 hrs
  -> Thanks Charles. Exactly!
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

11 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
none of these ideas are the stuff of great geopolitical doctrines
(while) these ideas are not currently considered to be part of serious geopolitical doctrines...


Explanation:
perhaps they should be as
"the age of accelerations will be a graveyard for fancy big ideas"

None of the other answers have taken on this nuance, stemming from the second part of the sentence, which basically implies that the author considers it a mistake that these ideas are NOT taken seriously at the moment and that they are Not forming an integral part of major geopolitical policies or doctrines.

"...these hybrid combinations of drones and walls, aircraft carriers and Peace Corps volunteers, plus chickens, gardens, and Webs" will be used in the future "to begin to create stability in the age of accelerations".

or

"You need to juggle drones and walls where you must; invest in chickens, gardens, and schools where you can; amplify islands of decency wherever you find them; deter competing superpowers...."
in other words, sometimes it's necessary to think outside the box and oincorporate commonplace, seemingly ordinary ideas into modern geopolitics the

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 20 hrs (2018-11-09 12:43:28 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

put more simply

I think the author is saying that perhaps it's time to think about incorporating more ordianary, commonplace ideas (Peace Corps, chickens, gardens etc.) into geopolitics instead of relying on the major geopolitical doctrrines used till now. A mix of ideas is increasingly called for in the current climate, not just the grandiose ideas and conceptual frameworks of previous/current geopolitics

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 20 hrs (2018-11-10 12:08:35 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Glad to have helped

Yvonne Gallagher
Ireland
Local time: 09:29
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 56
Grading comment
Many thanks to everyone.
Thank you, Yvonne.

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  B D Finch: My understanding is that Friedman is rejecting the need for "great geopolitical doctrines", not claiming that his ideas should be turned intio such a doctine.// Into geopolitics, yes; but not into "great geopolitical doctrines". He's against megatheories.
6 hrs
  -> I disagree. The rest of the sentence and context needs to be taken into account. He's saying that commonplace, ordinary things should be incorporated into geopolitics, not just grandiose ideas as those grandiose ideas are no longer enough
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.


See also:
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search