mearsheimer's 5 assumptions of realism

However, what is striking is the prevalence and potency of dominance in social organization, despite variations in the specifics. Evolutionary theory and the causes of war,, John Strate emphasizes the importance of defense from attack by conspecifics, other humans; he argues that it caused the growth of human societies. Natural selection has led to a variety of contingent, context-dependent adaptations for maximizing survival and reproduction that include cooperation and alliances as well as self-help and aggression. Note: The unit of analysis varies among the theories (states for defensive and offensive realism, humans for classical realism and human evolution), but all predictions are for state behavior. As we have been at pains to explain, much of this variation stems from contextual differences (behavioral ecology)that is, a given individuals behavior can change across circumstances. Where a states own security is threatened or the state becomes vulnerable to exploitation, alliances offer one means of increasing or preserving power. Offensive realism based on evolutionary theory makes the same predictions for state behavior, but the ultimate causal mechanism is different: human evolution in the anarchic, dangerous, and competitive conditions of the late-Pliocene and Pleistocene eras. First, such studies would complement and critique the present study. Hamilton used genetic models to show that, while individual organisms are egoistic, they should be less so in their behavior toward genetic relatives, especially in parent-offspring and sibling relationships.Reference Hamilton87,Reference Hamilton88 This decrease in egoism is because close relatives share many of the same genesone-half for siblings and parents, one-quarter for aunts, uncles, and grandparents, and one-eighth for cousins. and He expands on Waltz's idea of structure causing behaviour . This has been done extensively many times elsewhere.Reference Barkow7,Reference Hodgson and Knudsen8,Reference Barkow, Cosmides and Tooby9,Reference Thayer10,Reference Sidanius, Kurzban, Sears, Huddy and Jervis11,Reference Alford and Hibbing12,Reference Gat13,Reference Rosen14,Reference Pinker15 Furthermore, we do not intend to make the full case for whether states do or do not act as predicted by offensive realism, which has also been done extensively elsewhere.Reference Layne16,Reference Mearsheimer17,Reference Labs18 The article focuses instead on our novel theoretical question: Do the core behavioral assumptions underlying the theory of offensive realism map onto evolved human nature? On the importance of resource harvesting for the development of dominance hierarchies, see James L. Boone, Competition, conflict, and the development of social hierarchies, in. Mearsheimer, taking his geography argument further, asserts that stopping the power of w ater is precisely why no state can be a global hegemon. The parsimony of general theories depends on how well they explain phenomena across space and time; in other words, the more closely they coincide with empirical observations across cultures and throughout history. Mearsheimer based his theory on five core assumptions: (1) the international system is anarchic (there is no authority that exists above the states to arbitrate their conflicts), (2) all states have some military capability (however limited), (3) states can never fully ascertain the intentions of other states, (4) states value survival above all Our theory advances offensive realist arguments without seeking an ultimate cause in the anarchic international state system. 1 (Summer 1990), pp. Let us begin, therefore, by situating offensive realism in the realist paradigm moregenerally. Sexual selection is typically responsible for the hierarchical nature of group-living animal species, including humans, as males fight for rank and the reproductive benefits in brings. The fundamental differences and similarities between our theory of offensive realism and Mearsheimers arecaptured in Table4. I, Classical Realism (3) Emphasis on traits of mankind, Core Assumptions of Neorealism aka Stuctural Realism Waltz:, Core Assumptions of Offensive Realism Mearsheimer -Fear/Self Help W However, a study by Wrangham and Glowacki, which explicitly looked at warfare among hunter-gatherers who were surrounded by other hunter-gatherers, found that warfare was just as common in this more natural setting.Reference Wrangham and Glowacki80 Evidence from across the cumulative research of archeologists and anthropologists indicates that violence is a widespread feature of small-scale foraging societies and follows a pattern that is consistent as far back as we can see in the ethnographic and archeological record.81. An exceptional study of realism, and in some respects the fountainhead of offensive realism is Ashley Joachim Tellis, Gat 2006 and Azar Gat, So why do people fight? See. His most recent book, with Brian Mazanec, is Deterring Cyber Warfare: Bolstering StrategicStability in Cyberspace (Palgrave, 2014). Whereas classical realists such as Hans Morgenthau had traced international conflicts to the natural propensity of political leaders to seek to increase their power, neorealists (or structural realists) such as Waltz located the cause of war in the structure of international relations. Biology, politics, and the emerging science of human nature, Violence and Warfare among Hunter-Gatherers, Behavior, Culture, and Conflict in World Politics, Blood Is Their Argument: Warfare Among the Mae Enga Tribesmen of the New Guinea Highland, War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage, The Origins of War: Violence in Prehistory, Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage, Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, Human aggression in evolutionary psychological perspective, The evolution of war: theory and controversy, Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population, Group competition, reproductive leveling, and the evolution of human altruism, Intergroup aggression in chimpanzees and war in nomadic hunter-gatherers: Evaluating the chimpanzee model, Warfare and reproductive success in a tribal population, The genetical evolution of social behavior. Humans survived (and note that several other Hominin species did not) by virtue of evolved behavioral traitsamong them egoism, dominance, and the ingroup/outgroup biaswhich were adaptations to competitive ecological conditions. Third, exploring how evolution intersects with other theories of international relations would advance the goal of consilience, fusing theoretical and empirical knowledge drawn from both the social and natural sciences. The optimistic message of our argument is that understanding human nature will make efforts toward international institutions, democracy, and cooperation more effective. Males of most mammal species are particularly competitive with each other over females. Chimpanzees do at least have some important ecological similarities to humans. However, a key insight from evolution is that the primacy of self-help, power maximization, and outgroup fear does not necessarily condemn individuals or groups to competition and conflict; rather, these traits can in themselves give rise to cooperation and alliances. Heis the author of Darwin and International Relations: On the EvolutionaryOrigins of War and Ethnic Conflict (University Press of Kentucky, 2004). Theorists have had to explain how cooperation could occur in the face of significant individual self-interest, the difficulties of collective-action, and the free-rider problem.Reference Boyd175,Reference Olson176,Reference Ostrom177 Special conditions are needed for cooperation to emerge and remain stable among unrelated individuals.178,Reference Sigmund179 Typically, those special conditions are ones that make helping advantageous to the genes responsible for the behavior. We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. First, offensive realism fails to explain why costly wars sometimes occur against the interests of the states that initiate them. Defensive realists argue that too much powerclassically, too much military powerdecreases a states security because other states will balance against it. hasContentIssue false, Human evolution under anarchy: predation, resource competition, and intergroup conflict, The evolution of adaptive behavioral strategies: Egoism, dominance, and ingroup/outgroup bias, Evolution and offensive realism: New insights, Criticisms and extensions of an evolutionary approach. By 2009, after 18 such killings, the rival group had been all but destroyed. We prefer a more positive picture of human nature, perhaps one that accords with comfortable modern life in developed states. Other recent work has been an International Security paper, with Monica Toft, Grounds for War: The Evolution of Territorial Conflict, which explores the behavioral origins of fighting over land. The motivation for such conquests does not, of course, involve conscious planning to attain larger territories or more offspring. Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations that emphasizes the role of power politics in international relations, sees competition and conflict as enduring features and sees limited potential for cooperation. Note that we do not intend to make the full case forthe role of evolution in human behavior. However, we need to see the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. Identification with a specific group provides individuals with meaning and purpose, encouraging them to become part of a community with common interests, values, and goals.Reference Hewstone, Rubin and Willis122,Reference Fiske123,Reference Sidanius and Pratto124 One also knows what one is notthe outgroup, which is stereotyped and homogenized as the Other. Among the many different possible ingroup categories, the most common and significant include family, friends, age, sex, class, ethnicity, politics, religion, and nationality. Second, our argument makes two contributions to the theory of offensive realism: We ground the theory in human evolution (instead of the international system), and we extend it into new domains (beyond the interaction of states as units of analysis). However, the persistence of these three traits across domains and over time casts doubt on arguments like these, and strongly counts in favor of an evolutionary explanation instead. This realist assumption, however, is incorrect . Cooperation and peace efforts often fail precisely because people have too rosy a view of human nature and thus fail to structure incentives effectively. 21 June 2016. In short, offensive realism may really be describing the nature of the human species more than the nature of the international system. I, The genetical evolution of social behavior. States are much the same. These strategies are not unique to humans and, in fact, characterize a much broader trend in behavior among mammals as a wholeespecially primatesas well as many other major vertebrate groups, including birds, fish, and reptiles. We recognize that offensive realism remains controversial, and we would like to address three fundamental problems with the theory. The most well-known advocate of this view in recent years has been John Mearsheimer, whose offensive realism is articulated in his book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics: or Kenneth Waltz's structural realism. His current work focuses on evolutionary dynamics, evolutionary psychology, and religion in human conflict and cooperation. Render date: 2023-05-01T12:27:54.717Z Evolutionary theory also allows realist scholars to explain the intellectual foundations of offensive realism: Why individuals and state decision-makers are egoistic and strive to dominate others when circumstances permit, and why they make strong ingroup/outgroup distinctions. Note that we did not pick the traits of egoism, dominance, and ingroup/outgroup bias out of a hat. Rathbun, Brian C. Neorealism points to international anarchy, a phenomenon we can evaluate, as the ultimate cause of state behavior. Who wants power? Gat, 2006, p. 427; see also Elizabeth Knowles, ed.. See, for example, the recent articles and responses here: Steven Pinker, The false allure of group selection. Conflict may seem costly to all parties involved, winners and losers alike, but what matters for natural selection is whether fighting, despite its costs, can bring net benefits to Darwinian fitness. Will an outsider compete for the current or future resources that the insiders need to survive or expand? First, neorealism does not rely on noumenal ultimate causation, and, second, it explains and predicts variations in the likelihood of war in international politicsparticularly among great powers. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings. Sexual selection has led to costly biological adaptations, such as fighting, the growth of heavy weapons (e.g., antlers), risky courtship displays, or adornments that signal genetic quality (e.g., gigantic tails). Indeed, the competition for mates is subject to a special type of evolutionary selection processsexual selection, as opposed to standard natural selection. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science (Northwestern University) and has written numerous articles Encyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree. Evolutionary theory offers a powerful explanation for the trait of egoism (by which we mean the nonpejorative definition of self-regarding, prompted by self-interest).86 Given competition for limited resources and threats from predators and the environment, an individual organism is primed to seek its own survival andthe Darwinian bottom linereproductive success. We recognize that many factors may affect the behavior of states, including bureaucracies, types of government, culture, international institutions, or the international system itself, but we also recognize, as traditional theories of international politics have from the time of Thucydides, that humans affect state behavior as well.Reference Levy202 Many factors come between an individual leader and the behavior of a state, but that does not mean leaders have no effect at all. Despite realisms long history as a theory of international politics and its widespread use by scholars and policymakers such as E.H. Carr, George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, and Hans Morgenthau, the traditional realist argument rests on weak foundations. John Mearsheimer also sees a looming tragedy, one that (he argues) is inevitable. Our theory is also unlimited in domain, explaining behavior wherever there are human actors and weak external constraints on their actions, from ancestral human groups, ethnic conflict, and civil wars to domestic politics, free markets, and international relations. As formulated by Mearsheimer, the theory of offensive realism is a type of neorealism because the principal causes of state behavior are rooted in the anarchic international system. For their exceptional advice and comments, we thank lafur Darri Bjrnsson, Dan Blumstein, Miriam Fendius Elman, John Friend, David Galbreath, Azar Gat, Matthew Gratias, Valerie Hudson, Patrick James, Robert Jervis, Robert Keohane, Charles Lees, Anthony Lopez, Curt Nichols, Rose McDermott, Steven Pinker, Michael Price, Stephen Peter Rosen, Rafe Sagarin, Dominic Tierney, Monica Toft, Peter Turchin, Mark Van Vugt, Richard Wrangham, Remco Zwetsloot, and the anonymous reviewers. Our evolutionary approach predicts the same behavior as offensive realism but derives from a different ultimate cause. They can only be regional hegemons. Individual differences are important because political leaders may be more likely than the average person to display egoism, dominance, and groupishness. The preeminent evolutionary theorist J.B.S. Although Mearsheimer recognized war as a legitimate instrument of statecraft, he did not believe that it was always justified. Our editors will review what youve submitted and determine whether to revise the article. Under these conditions, such behavior will have been favored by natural selection and spread. Offensive realism, more than other major theories of international relations, closely matches what we know about human nature from the evolutionary sciences. } Rather, as Mearsheimer points out, states do best if they expand only when the opportunity for gains presents itselfthey try to figure out when to raise and when to fold.163 Evolution has been doing this for a long time. Huda, Mirza Sadaqat Even optimists acknowledge that remarkable mechanisms and institutions are required to generate and sustain cooperation, and the identification and implementation of these conditions occupies many of our colleagues.180,Reference Milner181,182 183 The European Union, to give one flagship example, is often put forward as a vision of the future, demonstrating that democratic states are willing to subordinate self-interest for a greater good, and that war is becoming obsolete. Animals do not constantly fight. Core Assumptions of Realism (5) 1. Thus, humans may consider other variables, such as the possibility of future trade or cooperation, when assessing outgroups. The Yanomamo among whom I lived were constantly worried about attacks from their neighbors and constantly lived in fear of this possibility. This insight has important implications for international politics because it suggests that we can potentially createat least in principleenvironments that take account of our human nature so we can turn them to our advantage, such as designing institutions that elicit cooperative rather than conflictual tendencies.Reference Keohane164,Reference Stein165. It is very important to notice that anarchy, according to Mearsheimer, . First, to whatever extent anarchy deserves its place among realist presumptions, the evolution of human groups interacting in conditions of anarchy deserves study within realism. The ubiquity and strength of the ingroup/outgroup bias across history and across human cultures suggest it is an ingrained aspect of human nature, and evolutionary theory explains why such a mechanism would evolve.Reference Alexander125,Reference Hammond and Axelrod126,Reference Choi and Bowles127 First, considerable evidence from both archeological and ethnographic research on preindustrial societies points to intensive intergroup conflict in our past.128,129,130,131,132,133 As we noted earlier, around 15 percent of male populations in indigenous small-scale societies died in warfare (and, in some such societies, war-related mortality rates were considerably higher).134,135 War also remains a significant influence on the social organization and physical distribution of these societies even when they are not actually at war. So, while the natural sciences recognize the remarkable sociality and mutual dependence exhibited by the human species, these sciences are also unified in recognizing the selective advantages of self-interest and power. As we show in the next section, competition between groups is especially significant for human evolution, and for international politics, precisely because it is at the intergroup level where anarchy reigns supreme and is much harder to suppress. Rather, chimpanzees appear to have evolved an innate aggression toward other groups, a tendency that causes them to attack neighboring males when the opportunity arises, and leads to greater Darwinian reproductive success over time. However, once again, the potential for cultural group selection does not change or challenge our argument. More important, however, is that we both evolved in conditions of free-for-all competitionof anarchywithout any Leviathan to administer life-and-death struggles with rival groups, a situation well recognized in the study of international relations among states. He argues, like Waltz, that the anarchic international system is responsible for much troublesuspicion, fear, security competition, and great power warsin international politics. The organism has to ensure that its physiological needs (for food, water, shelter, and so on) are satisfied so that it can survive and reproduce. 2022. Mearsheimer's theory is built on five bedrock assumptions. That certainly may be, as he attempts to demonstrate. Mearsheimers offensive realism argues that states gain power to ensure security. He uses and adapts on Waltz's theory to paint a much more pessimistic and altogether darker picture of International relations theory. An evolutionary foundation offers a major reinterpretation of the theory of offensive realism and permits its broader application to political behavior across a wide range of actors, domains, and historical eras. As we have explained, there are several mechanisms by which altruistic or helping behavior can (and have) evolved because of the benefits of helping others that accrue to oneselfnot least, altruistic behavior among kin, reciprocity, and reputation formation. Variations of Realism Working from these core assumptions realists have developed three major explanatory frameworks: l Classical or Human Nature Realists (Hans Morgenthau) l Structural or Defensive (a. k. a. neo-realists) Realists (Kenneth Waltz) l Offensive Realists (John Mearsheimer) l 3 Why would hunter-gatherer groups fight at all? Some decried the work as conspiratorial or factually weak, whereas others applauded its authors for having the courage to raise an important policy issue. Depending on the time of year, visitors can enjoy a Mythological Fair in the summer (MYTHOS), a Haunted Festival & Adventure in the fall (LORE) and a Magical Christmas/Winter . However, it is important to make clear that humans did not descend from either species. The cognitive mechanisms underpinning the three traits were established in an environment very different from the one in which humans now live, but they persist because our brains, biochemistry and nervous systems, which evolved over many millions of years, have remained the same despite the rapid sociological and technological advances of the last few centuries. Any given individuals Darwinian fitness will be increased if they can successfully seize the resources of others at sufficiently low cost.Reference Buss and Shackelford71 Of course, warfare also may be waged for defensive reasons, such as to defend critical resources from the advances of others.72 E.O. What is the logic for risking life and limb in engaging in violent aggression against other groups? Individuals fight when benefits are expected to exceed costs (on average), and not otherwise. Egoism and dominance arose as strategies that provided solutions to achieving survival and reproduction in this environment. Leaders are forced to maximize power when perhaps they would rather cooperate or share power with others. John Mearsheimer's Theory and its Major Assumptions|Realism #realpolitik International Relations & Politics 13.4K subscribers Subscribe 153 2.4K views 6 months ago Talk given on December. On the contrary, it is famously hard to initiate and maintain from both a theoretical and empirical perspective, which is why this topic continues to fill huge volumes of scholarly literature in economics and political science.208,209 As we have emphasized, cooperation is easy to explain where it brings clear mutual benefits to the self-interest of those involved, such as trade or military alliances (in which case offensive realism is as good an explanation of cooperation as any other theory). A couple of times a month, groups of males would venture stealthily and deliberately into the periphery of their neighbors territory and, if the invaders found males wandering there alone, they brutally beat them to death. Offensive realists can thus explain more than the behavior of states or great powers. The fact that these evolved behaviors are not always beneficial today does nothing to undermine their evolutionary logic or empirical presence. In this article, we ask whether the three core assumptions about behavior in offensive realismself-help, power maximization, and outgroup fearhave any basis in scientific knowledge about human behavioral evolution. While biological group selection in humans is possible in theory, there have not been any published empirical examples. The way this framework affects the conceptualisation of power in Mearsheimer's realism will be examined first through the examination of his . Evolutionary theory accounts for egoism and explains why cooperation can extend to the family or close kin group but remains difficult between unrelated individuals. We realize international cooperation is prevalent, but that does not mean such cooperation is easy to obtain. Will the outsider be a threat to oneself or to ones family? None captures all salient issues. Mearsheimer does use his theory to predict the future of great power He received a masters degree (1974) in international relations from the University of Southern California, as well as a masters degree (1978) and a Ph.D. (1981) in government from Cornell University. Strikingly, therefore, behavioral dispositions that enhanced success in the small-scale intergroup anarchy of humans evolutionary past may have endowed us with behaviors that also enhance success in the anarchy of the international system. Offensive realism, a theory of international relations, holds that states are disposed to competition and conflict because they are self-interested, power maximizing, and fearful of other states. We argue that evolution under conditions of anarchy has predisposed human nature toward the behaviors predicted by offensive realism: Humans, particularly men, are strongly self-interested, often fear other groups, and seek more resources, more power, and more influence (as we explain in full later). Feature Flags: { But what was that context? Until recently, international relations theorists rarely used insights from the life sciences to inform their understanding of human behavior. However, unlike Waltz, who fears that too much power for a state will lead other states to seek to achieve a balance of power and thus actually threaten the states security (the genesis of defensive realism),30 Mearsheimer argues that the international system requires that states maximize their offensive power to be secure and keep rivals from gaining power at their expense.31 In fact, this systemic incentive is so powerful that states would become the most powerful of all if they could: A states ultimate goal is to be the hegemon in the system.32 Only by being the hegemon can the state be absolutely sure of its security. Published online by Cambridge University Press: Nevertheless, overwhelming evidence shows that people also behave in ways that can be predicted from the biological knowledge outlined above. Aggression may be a risky strategy, but it is a more attractive option than starvation or other lethal dangers. Moreover, it argues that statesare obliged to behave this way because doing so favors survival in the international system. In short, you do not need group selection to explain altruism. Classical realists (such as Thucydides, E.H. Carr, Arnold Wolfers, and Hans Morgenthau) and offensive realists share the assumption that states seek to maximize power - that states are relentless seekers of power and influence.Specifically, for classical realists "nations expand their political interests abroad when their relative power increases . Far from the original view of chimpanzees as boisterous but peaceful human cousins, researchers in recent decades have uncovered that these primates have a systematic tendency to kill males from rival groups.Reference Wilson, Boesch, Fruth, Furuichi, Gilby, Hashimoto, Hobaiter, Hohmann, Itoh, Koops, Lloyd, Matsuzawa, Mitani, Mjungu, Morgan, Muller, Mundry, Nakamura, Pruetz, Pusey, Riedel, Sanz, Schel, Simmons, Waller, Watts, White, Wittig, Zuberbuhler and Wrangham2,Reference Wrangham3,Reference Manson and Wrangham4 As primatologist Richard Wrangham put it, violence between groups of chimpanzees is like a shoot-on-sight policy.Reference Wrangham5 The strategic rationale is very simple: to eliminate rivals and increase territory. Egoism, dominance, and ingroup/outgroup distinctions have previously been attributed to variables such as culture, economics, or religion.148,149 For example, Karl Marx and his followers identified egoism as a result of capitalism and called for its suppression and the triumph of class consciousness. Indeed, cultural selection has often reinforced, not reduced, these very behaviors over human history. In international politics, the bigger problem may be aspiring hegemonsstates that do not need to cooperate to obtain what they want. George C. Williams famously made this point in response to so called nave group selectionists of the time, and his insight has continued to be reiterated to biology students ever since.Reference Williams189. Eric Labs captured this logic in his argument that, a strategy that seeks to maximize security through a maximum of relative power is the rational response to anarchy.38.

Boombah Knicker Baseball Pants, Angela Lansbury First Husband, Digital Fabric Printing Los Angeles, Newark's River: Public Access And Redevelopment Plan, Travel Basketball Teams In Broward, Articles M